3 ms·

> If you genuinely want to change minds here, then show how nuclear could be rolled out on a global scale starting today cheaper than renewables. It’s simple:

> If you genuinely want to change minds here, then show how nuclear could be rolled out on a global scale starting today cheaper than renewables. It’s simple: renewables can’t be rolled out on a global scale to cover our current usage, because of the huge variability in production. Modern economies require very predictable production. Nuclear on the other hand is a proven technology that works.

piva00 7y ago
What about energy storage systems to balance the load during off-peak hours? Shouldn't we invest in developing these kind of batteries (not only Li-Ion or related technologies) to support the baseload? Even if it's inefficient we have, globally, enough capacity for wind, solar, waves, hydro, etc., to power our current needs multiple times without having to deal with construction of nuclear power plants that are always delayed and overrun forecasted costs, be it because of regulations (which I think are REALLY important for safety, very few complain that aviation is too regulated, I'd put nuclear reactors a step above that) or just because it is difficult to build an efficient and safe design. As safe as it is even a single accident has huge implications and is much more disastrous than almost any other form of energy production. I'm saying this as someone who always supported nuclear, I just believe that we might be on an inflection point where it might not be so relevant if our renewables technology continue to accelerate its progress as it's been during the past decade.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tarsinge 7y ago
  > Even if it's inefficient we have, globally, enough capacity for wind, solar, waves, hydro, etc., to power our current needs multiple times without having to deal with construction of nuclear power plants that are always delayed and overrun forecasted costs, be it because of regulations (which I think are REALLY important for safety, very few complain that aviation is too regulated, I'd put nuclear reactors a step above that) or just because it is difficult to build an efficient and safe design. See other comment, the problem is not production capacity alone, it's also adjusting production to demand. > I'm saying this as someone who always supported nuclear, I just believe that we might be on an inflection point where it might not be so relevant if our renewables technology continue to accelerate its progress as it's been during the past decade. Good, I come from the opposite and changed my opinions after seing the numbers, from quantity of material needed for renewables to grid constraints.
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
So this is wrong on various levels. Solar and wind are fairly predictable, you can find graphs of predicted versus actual production at various times ahead. Usage is not flat, it has peaks and troughs on daily and seasonal cycles. If it was perfectly flat then nuclear would have a big advantage. But it's not, so it has the same options as solar or wind that doesn't match demand. You can build more than you need and just throw some away sometimes or you can build roughly what you need on average and store it when you have more than you need for when you have too little. At the moment the former is cheaper (and getting cheaper for renewables), but the storage options are getting better too. You need the storage for nuclear anyway, but as it gets rolled out it undermines nuclear's big advantage compared with renewables.
- tarsinge 7y ago
  > Solar and wind are fairly predictable, you can find graphs of predicted versus actual production at various times ahead. Usage is not flat, it has peaks and troughs on daily and seasonal cycles. I didn't want to say that, and should have used 'controllable' instead of predictable. Because when you have a week without wind or sun in the middle of winter you are not going to tell people to shut down their heather. There are advance in storage but nowhere the order of magnitude needed for dense cities. Have a look at how nuclear power can be rapidly adjusted to compensate for changing production in renewables (in french sorry): https://twitter.com/tristankamin/status/1102620969808658432 https://twitter.com/tristankamin/status/1102620969808658432. There is no way we'll achieve that kind of adjustment with renewables alone in the short term, whereas nuclear + renewables is proved and working at the moment for very low C02 emission electricity production in France[1]. There are interesting things going on like pumping water up into dams with excess peak power from renewables, but that'll cover a few days, not a full winter. [1] https://www.electricitymap.org https://www.electricitymap.org
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    You get that flexibility from renewables the same way you get it from nuclear. You build too much and when you don't need it you just throw it away. Then you can magically increase or decrease production to match demand. No storage needed. Though we already have some storage and more on the way. But it'll always be cheaper to overbuild and "waste" some unless some radically cheaper storage is invented.

piva00 7y ago

What about energy storage systems to balance the load during off-peak hours? Shouldn't we invest in developing these kind of batteries (not only Li-Ion or related technologies) to support the baseload? Even if it's inefficient we have, globally, enough capacity for wind, solar, waves, hydro, etc., to power our current needs multiple times without having to deal with construction of nuclear power plants that are always delayed and overrun forecasted costs, be it because of regulations (which I think are REALLY important for safety, very few complain that aviation is too regulated, I'd put nuclear reactors a step above that) or just because it is difficult to build an efficient and safe design. As safe as it is even a single accident has huge implications and is much more disastrous than almost any other form of energy production. I'm saying this as someone who always supported nuclear, I just believe that we might be on an inflection point where it might not be so relevant if our renewables technology continue to accelerate its progress as it's been during the past decade.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tarsinge 7y ago
> Even if it's inefficient we have, globally, enough capacity for wind, solar, waves, hydro, etc., to power our current needs multiple times without having to deal with construction of nuclear power plants that are always delayed and overrun forecasted costs, be it because of regulations (which I think are REALLY important for safety, very few complain that aviation is too regulated, I'd put nuclear reactors a step above that) or just because it is difficult to build an efficient and safe design. See other comment, the problem is not production capacity alone, it's also adjusting production to demand. > I'm saying this as someone who always supported nuclear, I just believe that we might be on an inflection point where it might not be so relevant if our renewables technology continue to accelerate its progress as it's been during the past decade. Good, I come from the opposite and changed my opinions after seing the numbers, from quantity of material needed for renewables to grid constraints.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

So this is wrong on various levels. Solar and wind are fairly predictable, you can find graphs of predicted versus actual production at various times ahead. Usage is not flat, it has peaks and troughs on daily and seasonal cycles. If it was perfectly flat then nuclear would have a big advantage. But it's not, so it has the same options as solar or wind that doesn't match demand. You can build more than you need and just throw some away sometimes or you can build roughly what you need on average and store it when you have more than you need for when you have too little. At the moment the former is cheaper (and getting cheaper for renewables), but the storage options are getting better too. You need the storage for nuclear anyway, but as it gets rolled out it undermines nuclear's big advantage compared with renewables.

tarsinge 7y ago
> Solar and wind are fairly predictable, you can find graphs of predicted versus actual production at various times ahead. Usage is not flat, it has peaks and troughs on daily and seasonal cycles. I didn't want to say that, and should have used 'controllable' instead of predictable. Because when you have a week without wind or sun in the middle of winter you are not going to tell people to shut down their heather. There are advance in storage but nowhere the order of magnitude needed for dense cities. Have a look at how nuclear power can be rapidly adjusted to compensate for changing production in renewables (in french sorry): https://twitter.com/tristankamin/status/1102620969808658432 https://twitter.com/tristankamin/status/1102620969808658432. There is no way we'll achieve that kind of adjustment with renewables alone in the short term, whereas nuclear + renewables is proved and working at the moment for very low C02 emission electricity production in France[1]. There are interesting things going on like pumping water up into dams with excess peak power from renewables, but that'll cover a few days, not a full winter. [1] https://www.electricitymap.org https://www.electricitymap.org
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  You get that flexibility from renewables the same way you get it from nuclear. You build too much and when you don't need it you just throw it away. Then you can magically increase or decrease production to match demand. No storage needed. Though we already have some storage and more on the way. But it'll always be cheaper to overbuild and "waste" some unless some radically cheaper storage is invented.