7 ms·

> nuclear energy seems to be the only way we have right now to at least try to avoid the oncoming climate catastrophe. Fortunately, within the past few years,

> nuclear energy seems to be the only way we have right now to at least try to avoid the oncoming climate catastrophe. Fortunately, within the past few years, this is no longer true. Renewables + storage are now cheaper than nuclear as a carbon free and dispatchable resource. They are actually not only winning bids for new generation, they are actually starting to win power purchase agreements over _existing_ coal power plants and expecting to start beating existing gas plants within 5-10 years. It's truly remarkable how fast solar, wind, and batteries have scaled up and started competing on price in the base load markets over the past few years. The current expectation in the utility industry is that by the time next gen nuclear is commercialized, the grid will already be >90% carbon free. So even if we missed the boat on nuclear, there are other carbon free alternatives that are scaling up to meet decarbonization needs.

Robotbeat 7y ago
90% isn’t enough, and being able to decarbonization all of it is super helpful, so yeah, even if new nuclear helps just with that last 10%, that’s still hugely important. Remember, we’re going to have to be carbon NEGATIVE because of how much time we’ve wasted. We need every resource at our disposal.
- diafygi 7y ago
  Oh totally. If next gen nuclear can help decarbonize the last 10%, that would be great. However the tone in OP's comment seemed more like nuclear is our only hope. When in reality it will likely be something to meet edge cases rather than base load.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Nuclear is uniquely terrible at filling in the occasional time slices renewables cannot. Nuclear's economics degrade horribly when used at low capacity factor like that. They are not complementary sources.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      You would use the nuclear resource constantly, just like solar and wind. Can schedule refueling and maintenance in summer when there’s plenty of sun. Additionally: thermal plants like nuclear are more efficient in the winter (particularly if you add a bottoming cycle), meaning they generate more power right when they’re needed.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        But then you're paying the much higher levelized cost of nuclear (and it is much higher, a factor of perhaps 4 or more) when the solar or wind or solar/wind in short term storage are available. So this doesn't work either. As I said, solar/wind and nuclear are not complementary. They're in competition.
        Robotbeat 7y ago
        It doesn’t matter. We can no longer use fossil fuels any longer, and the amount we’d need to curtail wind and solar in the wintertime, even with a day or two of storage, is so high that nuclear is competitive & extremely helpful. Northern nations are going to have to decarbonize heating as well at the time of year when solar is at its worst. They really should be using nuclear.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        No, I don't think that's the case. I think if you optimize out a CO2-grid using realistic assumptions about where the costs of renewables, storage, and nuclear will be in ten years, it will optimize out to 0% nuclear. There may still be reactors operating at that time, but they will be lame ducks with their construction costs already sunk.
        Robotbeat 7y ago
        I think you haven't done such calculations. I have. At high latitudes, nuclear is competitive.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Every time we manage to reduce carbon emissions we are also gaining more time to solve the problem.
agentultra 7y ago
I'm curious what the external effects will be for disposal of EOL solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. They don't have the same regulation as nuclear and it seems to be ignored in these discussions -- solar panels leech extremely toxic chemicals into the water table if not properly disposed of... which we have no regulation for yet as far as I'm aware. Nuclear has far more regulation and decades of operational experience. Newer designs are incredibly safe and offer far more power, constantly, than renewables alone. I think we can all agree that a mix is in our future however I think the article is probably spot on that fear of nuclear technology, however misplaced, is a significant contributor to its slow adoption and greater expense.
- mimixco 7y ago
  Chemicals can be filtered out of water. Radiation cannot.
  - petschge 7y ago
    Radiation is released by specific chemicals. If what you said was true they would be easy to filter out.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      No. Chemicals operate at the level of atoms and molecules. Nuclear radiation operates at the subatomic level and moves through matter into other matter. You can hold a rock made of heavy metal in your hand which would kill you if ingested. If the rock were a gamma particle emitter, however, those subatomic particles will leave the rock and pass into your body, then through your body and out into the world beyond. This poorly understood fact is what makes nuclear materials so dangerous. They simply cannot be compared to other "poisons" such as are used in solar plants or PC chips.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - 7y ago
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
Storage? You have to generate the energy to store it. Where is it coming from? Renewables don't come close to fulfilling the USA's power needs.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  What is the argument you are making there? That renewables do not now come close to fulfilling US energy needs? That's true, but it's no reason to think that doing so is impossible. Or are you arguing that they never can do so? If you are arguing that, I must disagree.
mimixco 7y ago
Thank you. You probably know all anti-nuke facts posted on HN get downvoted. Happens to me every day. As the song says, "Lemee tell ya that we won't stop!"
- dang 7y ago
  Could you please stop using HN for flamewars? Regardless of how right you are on an underlying topic, it damages this site and makes it worse for everybody. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
opo 7y ago
>...Renewables + storage are now cheaper than nuclear as a carbon free and dispatchable resource. Trying to rely only on intermittent power sources has huge storage requirements due to weather along with daily/seasonal variations. For example, one estimate is that Germany would need about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is 183 times their current capacity: >...Based on German hourly feed-in and consumption data for electric power, this paper studies the storage and buffering needs resulting from the volatility of wind and solar energy. It shows that joint buffers for wind and solar energy require less storage capacity than would be necessary to buffer wind or solar energy alone. The storage requirement of over 6,000 pumped storage plants, which is 183 times Germany’s current capacity, would nevertheless be huge. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5950.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5... >...The current expectation in the utility industry is that by the time next gen nuclear is commercialized, the grid will already be >90% carbon free. What is your industry source for this? Getting the grid to be >90% carbon free is a huge undertaking and won't be done anytime soon.

Robotbeat 7y ago

90% isn’t enough, and being able to decarbonization all of it is super helpful, so yeah, even if new nuclear helps just with that last 10%, that’s still hugely important. Remember, we’re going to have to be carbon NEGATIVE because of how much time we’ve wasted. We need every resource at our disposal.

diafygi 7y ago
Oh totally. If next gen nuclear can help decarbonize the last 10%, that would be great. However the tone in OP's comment seemed more like nuclear is our only hope. When in reality it will likely be something to meet edge cases rather than base load.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Nuclear is uniquely terrible at filling in the occasional time slices renewables cannot. Nuclear's economics degrade horribly when used at low capacity factor like that. They are not complementary sources.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    You would use the nuclear resource constantly, just like solar and wind. Can schedule refueling and maintenance in summer when there’s plenty of sun. Additionally: thermal plants like nuclear are more efficient in the winter (particularly if you add a bottoming cycle), meaning they generate more power right when they’re needed.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      But then you're paying the much higher levelized cost of nuclear (and it is much higher, a factor of perhaps 4 or more) when the solar or wind or solar/wind in short term storage are available. So this doesn't work either. As I said, solar/wind and nuclear are not complementary. They're in competition.
      - Robotbeat 7y ago
        It doesn’t matter. We can no longer use fossil fuels any longer, and the amount we’d need to curtail wind and solar in the wintertime, even with a day or two of storage, is so high that nuclear is competitive & extremely helpful. Northern nations are going to have to decarbonize heating as well at the time of year when solar is at its worst. They really should be using nuclear.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        No, I don't think that's the case. I think if you optimize out a CO2-grid using realistic assumptions about where the costs of renewables, storage, and nuclear will be in ten years, it will optimize out to 0% nuclear. There may still be reactors operating at that time, but they will be lame ducks with their construction costs already sunk.
        Robotbeat 7y ago
        I think you haven't done such calculations. I have. At high latitudes, nuclear is competitive.
imtringued 7y ago
Every time we manage to reduce carbon emissions we are also gaining more time to solve the problem.

agentultra 7y ago

I'm curious what the external effects will be for disposal of EOL solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. They don't have the same regulation as nuclear and it seems to be ignored in these discussions -- solar panels leech extremely toxic chemicals into the water table if not properly disposed of... which we have no regulation for yet as far as I'm aware. Nuclear has far more regulation and decades of operational experience. Newer designs are incredibly safe and offer far more power, constantly, than renewables alone. I think we can all agree that a mix is in our future however I think the article is probably spot on that fear of nuclear technology, however misplaced, is a significant contributor to its slow adoption and greater expense.

mimixco 7y ago
Chemicals can be filtered out of water. Radiation cannot.
- petschge 7y ago
  Radiation is released by specific chemicals. If what you said was true they would be easy to filter out.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    No. Chemicals operate at the level of atoms and molecules. Nuclear radiation operates at the subatomic level and moves through matter into other matter. You can hold a rock made of heavy metal in your hand which would kill you if ingested. If the rock were a gamma particle emitter, however, those subatomic particles will leave the rock and pass into your body, then through your body and out into the world beyond. This poorly understood fact is what makes nuclear materials so dangerous. They simply cannot be compared to other "poisons" such as are used in solar plants or PC chips.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - 7y ago

PunksATawnyFill 7y ago

Storage? You have to generate the energy to store it. Where is it coming from? Renewables don't come close to fulfilling the USA's power needs.

pfdietz 7y ago
What is the argument you are making there? That renewables do not now come close to fulfilling US energy needs? That's true, but it's no reason to think that doing so is impossible. Or are you arguing that they never can do so? If you are arguing that, I must disagree.

mimixco 7y ago

Thank you. You probably know all anti-nuke facts posted on HN get downvoted. Happens to me every day. As the song says, "Lemee tell ya that we won't stop!"

dang 7y ago
Could you please stop using HN for flamewars? Regardless of how right you are on an underlying topic, it damages this site and makes it worse for everybody. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

opo 7y ago

>...Renewables + storage are now cheaper than nuclear as a carbon free and dispatchable resource. Trying to rely only on intermittent power sources has huge storage requirements due to weather along with daily/seasonal variations. For example, one estimate is that Germany would need about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is 183 times their current capacity: >...Based on German hourly feed-in and consumption data for electric power, this paper studies the storage and buffering needs resulting from the volatility of wind and solar energy. It shows that joint buffers for wind and solar energy require less storage capacity than would be necessary to buffer wind or solar energy alone. The storage requirement of over 6,000 pumped storage plants, which is 183 times Germany’s current capacity, would nevertheless be huge. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5950.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5... >...The current expectation in the utility industry is that by the time next gen nuclear is commercialized, the grid will already be >90% carbon free. What is your industry source for this? Getting the grid to be >90% carbon free is a huge undertaking and won't be done anytime soon.