6 ms·

Hey, I wouldn't put myself in the Anti nuclear camp. Its just the costs, they're high and increasing. My point about nuclear not being dispatchable is that if

Hey, I wouldn't put myself in the Anti nuclear camp. Its just the costs, they're high and increasing. My point about nuclear not being dispatchable is that if wind is going to be the cheap backbone, then any expensive generation has to find a niche that works around that. Nuclear doesn't have that niche. I seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? Where after all the politicking you've spent 10 years before you've even broken ground.

godelski 7y ago
> has to find a niche that works around that. Nuclear doesn't have that >> Until then we have to face the duck curve. So what are our choices? Natural gas, coal, nuclear. Take your pick. I'm not sure if you read that part, so I am quoting myself. I'm getting to the fact that renewables aren't constant energy producers (major part of my post. Pretty much the only part actually). > seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. I mean... my whole point is about combating climate change. I'm definitely thinking much longer than 20-30 years. > But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? > I seem to be taking a longer view than you, These comments seem to be in contention. I'll let you resolve it before I respond any more.
- benj111 7y ago
  Re long term, I mean I'm thinking of how I can see the grid ideally looking, not in the transitional phase we are in now. Sure if we plonked down a nuclear reactor now, that would be good, absenting cost, but it isn't going to be ready now, or in 10 years, so we need to be looking at what the grid will be looking like, and I hope by that point the grid will be well on the way being green so this power station will be competing against wind and solar, not coal and gas. Re renewables not being constant. That's my point, and nuclear isn't flexible enough to take advantage. You can make the case for £100mwh batteries because they can step in instantly, nuclear can't, and also, when the winds blowing that's always going to be cheaper, so the massive fixed costs of nuclear get amortized over less and less MWHs.
  - mavhc 7y ago
    There's no way to make enough batteries for 100% renewable grid, everyone on the planet would need an electric car sized battery, which means you'd need 10000 gigafactories iirc. Which is why I suggested 50% nuclear, 50% renewable. That's still about 100x more renewable than we have today
    - benj111 7y ago
      "everyone on the planet would need an electric car sized battery" This is basically what we're aiming for (in the west at least) anyway, with EVs? Are you saying we don't have the materials to do it? Or we don't have the factory capacity for it? Batteries can be made from a variety of materials, and we supply near enough 1 car per person in the west, so batteries should be doable? Id hope some combination of said car batteries, continent spanning grids, smart appliances would get us most of the way there. The biggest flaw with this model is what happens on cloudy, still weeks? I guess some kind of waste to energy, wood, and bio gas, hydrogen power station would be less expensive than a nuclear reactor.
      - godelski 7y ago
        I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but > Are you saying we don't have the materials to do it? Yes. At least without substantially expanding mining operations. > Or we don't have the factory capacity for it? We're NOWHERE near that kind of production level. > The biggest flaw with this model is what happens on cloudy, still weeks? I guess some kind of waste to energy, wood, and bio gas, hydrogen power station would be less expensive than a nuclear reactor. Not if we price in carbon emissions. I also have to mention that there are plenty of places that people live where it is almost always cloudy and almost never windy (at the same time). I will keep saying this: we need diversified energy portfolios. The key though, is we don't want any of those sources producing emissions, or to at least minimize them as much as possible (we're playing a negative sum game here)
        benj111 7y ago
        "Not if we price in carbon emissions" All those things can be carbon neutral, except waste to energy. Obviously though yes, those places with no wind, sun or other resources. Nuclear will have a place.
_Tev 7y ago
> Its just the costs, they're high and increasing. This is only because of economies of scale (China is building many nuclear reactors and they seem to be fine). Also no one ever factors storage / higher grid costs / backup generation into costs of renewables. When people use such double standard no wonder nuclear seems uneconomic! > I seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? EDIT: I misread your point, but I will leave this here as it seems to me important point anyway In this time frame there is not even a _talk_ about having renewables backed by storage / carbon neutral backup generation (because that would be lol expensive with current tech). So you're proposing majority generation being fossils fuels? I thought climate change was important or something. We _might_ get there with battery tech, but 1) nuclear will benefit from load balancing grid scale storage as well 2) in the meantime we will burn fossil fuels, alright?
- benj111 7y ago
  "This is only because of economies of scale" It probably is part, but not all of the problem, people want safe reactors, that isn't cheap. To answer your point 2. There isn't going to be a nuclear plant to step in anyway, they're such long term projects. If you plonk down a nuclear power station now, fine. But in 20 - 30 years you're going to have new nuclear power stations in a landscape that is hopefully already dominated by solar and wind, and nuclear just doesn't fit around renewables (which are cheaper when the winds blowing/suns shining) well enough to succeed. Your point 1 is potentially good for nuclear, if it raises the usage factor. Nuclear's economics are based on running 24/7 but you can't do that with renewables.
  - godelski 7y ago
    >To answer your point 2. There isn't going to be a nuclear plant to step in anyway, To this same point, what is? We don't live in a world of magic. We can't just plop down magical battery systems that don't even exist. Those are also 10-20 years out, from being invented, let alone built. Your argument is moot unless you provide an alternative that can be built right now. If you actually have one, I'm sure every pro-nuclear person would support it. Because our alliance isn't with nuclear, it is with the Earth.

godelski 7y ago

> has to find a niche that works around that. Nuclear doesn't have that >> Until then we have to face the duck curve. So what are our choices? Natural gas, coal, nuclear. Take your pick. I'm not sure if you read that part, so I am quoting myself. I'm getting to the fact that renewables aren't constant energy producers (major part of my post. Pretty much the only part actually). > seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. I mean... my whole point is about combating climate change. I'm definitely thinking much longer than 20-30 years. > But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? > I seem to be taking a longer view than you, These comments seem to be in contention. I'll let you resolve it before I respond any more.

benj111 7y ago
Re long term, I mean I'm thinking of how I can see the grid ideally looking, not in the transitional phase we are in now. Sure if we plonked down a nuclear reactor now, that would be good, absenting cost, but it isn't going to be ready now, or in 10 years, so we need to be looking at what the grid will be looking like, and I hope by that point the grid will be well on the way being green so this power station will be competing against wind and solar, not coal and gas. Re renewables not being constant. That's my point, and nuclear isn't flexible enough to take advantage. You can make the case for £100mwh batteries because they can step in instantly, nuclear can't, and also, when the winds blowing that's always going to be cheaper, so the massive fixed costs of nuclear get amortized over less and less MWHs.
- mavhc 7y ago
  There's no way to make enough batteries for 100% renewable grid, everyone on the planet would need an electric car sized battery, which means you'd need 10000 gigafactories iirc. Which is why I suggested 50% nuclear, 50% renewable. That's still about 100x more renewable than we have today
  - benj111 7y ago
    "everyone on the planet would need an electric car sized battery" This is basically what we're aiming for (in the west at least) anyway, with EVs? Are you saying we don't have the materials to do it? Or we don't have the factory capacity for it? Batteries can be made from a variety of materials, and we supply near enough 1 car per person in the west, so batteries should be doable? Id hope some combination of said car batteries, continent spanning grids, smart appliances would get us most of the way there. The biggest flaw with this model is what happens on cloudy, still weeks? I guess some kind of waste to energy, wood, and bio gas, hydrogen power station would be less expensive than a nuclear reactor.
    - godelski 7y ago
      I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but > Are you saying we don't have the materials to do it? Yes. At least without substantially expanding mining operations. > Or we don't have the factory capacity for it? We're NOWHERE near that kind of production level. > The biggest flaw with this model is what happens on cloudy, still weeks? I guess some kind of waste to energy, wood, and bio gas, hydrogen power station would be less expensive than a nuclear reactor. Not if we price in carbon emissions. I also have to mention that there are plenty of places that people live where it is almost always cloudy and almost never windy (at the same time). I will keep saying this: we need diversified energy portfolios. The key though, is we don't want any of those sources producing emissions, or to at least minimize them as much as possible (we're playing a negative sum game here)
      - benj111 7y ago
        "Not if we price in carbon emissions" All those things can be carbon neutral, except waste to energy. Obviously though yes, those places with no wind, sun or other resources. Nuclear will have a place.

_Tev 7y ago

> Its just the costs, they're high and increasing. This is only because of economies of scale (China is building many nuclear reactors and they seem to be fine). Also no one ever factors storage / higher grid costs / backup generation into costs of renewables. When people use such double standard no wonder nuclear seems uneconomic! > I seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? EDIT: I misread your point, but I will leave this here as it seems to me important point anyway In this time frame there is not even a _talk_ about having renewables backed by storage / carbon neutral backup generation (because that would be lol expensive with current tech). So you're proposing majority generation being fossils fuels? I thought climate change was important or something. We _might_ get there with battery tech, but 1) nuclear will benefit from load balancing grid scale storage as well 2) in the meantime we will burn fossil fuels, alright?

benj111 7y ago
"This is only because of economies of scale" It probably is part, but not all of the problem, people want safe reactors, that isn't cheap. To answer your point 2. There isn't going to be a nuclear plant to step in anyway, they're such long term projects. If you plonk down a nuclear power station now, fine. But in 20 - 30 years you're going to have new nuclear power stations in a landscape that is hopefully already dominated by solar and wind, and nuclear just doesn't fit around renewables (which are cheaper when the winds blowing/suns shining) well enough to succeed. Your point 1 is potentially good for nuclear, if it raises the usage factor. Nuclear's economics are based on running 24/7 but you can't do that with renewables.
- godelski 7y ago
  >To answer your point 2. There isn't going to be a nuclear plant to step in anyway, To this same point, what is? We don't live in a world of magic. We can't just plop down magical battery systems that don't even exist. Those are also 10-20 years out, from being invented, let alone built. Your argument is moot unless you provide an alternative that can be built right now. If you actually have one, I'm sure every pro-nuclear person would support it. Because our alliance isn't with nuclear, it is with the Earth.