13 ms·

>Nuclear power plants need to run close to max capacity all the time to make financial sense at all. That's right. And we know that they work and they can scal

>Nuclear power plants need to run close to max capacity all the time to make financial sense at all. That's right. And we know that they work and they can scale with our needs. We know we can make them cleaner and more efficient. Maybe wind and solar just isn't the technology of the future for anything by niche applications.

adrianN 7y ago
Nuclear would have been a good solution if we started thirty years ago. By today we don't have enough time to go 100% nuclear before we emitted to much CO2. We have less than ten years of current emissions left if we want to stay below 1.5°. Building nuclear power plants takes longer than that.
- RockIslandLine 7y ago
  "Building nuclear power plants takes longer than that." So fix that broken process. This is a nonsense result.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Production of all carbon free energy, sources: solar + wind + nuclear, is not enough to get to 100%in a decade, unfortunately
- mlyle 7y ago
  We can't get to 100% with solar/wind in a decade, either. Do what we can with solar/wind, and also start building nuclear base load.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Nuclear would have been a good solution if we started thirty years ago. Talk about an understatement. Imagine the trillions of tons of CO2 that would not have been emitted into the atmosphere had the developed world invested in nuclear to the same level as France. It would maybe bought us another 50 years. Really puts into perspective the destructive force of anti-nuclear environmentalism. >We have less than ten years of current emissions left if we want to stay below 1.5° Hate to break it to you, solar/wind/battery isn't going to do it. It can't do it today, and there's nothing forthcoming to change that. Germany who went all in, is projecting 2060s as the time they wean themselves off of fossil fuels. France on the other hand is essential fossil-fuel free from power generation today, as is my home province on most days (thanks to Nuclear and Hydro) [1]. [1]http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
pfdietz 7y ago
And we know they will cost two arms and a leg, compared to renewables.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Yah, I don't advocate a majority-nuclear grid. But at some point, the variability of renewables is going to start costing two arms and a leg, too. So a bit of dependable, low-carbon power in the mix sounds really good.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    But that doesn't work. Adding a little bit of nuclear to a mostly renewable grid is useless. Most of the output of the nuclear plants is thrown away when the renewables are generating, so the marginal cost of covering the remaining slack periods is hideously bad. Other sources would be cheaper (in particular, burning CO2-free hydrogen in turbines, or using natural gas w. atmospheric CO2 capture.)
    - mlyle 7y ago
      You add a bit of nuclear-- 10 to 30%. Then you size wind and solar for the remaining 70-90% of load, say 70th percentile. During the remaining 30% of the time, you use agreements that allow you to shed load and you draw upon intermittent hydroelectric resources. The solar/wind overcapacity factor and the remaining bit of battery or power->gas->power you need can be much, much smaller because the reliable nuclear base load really stretches the hydro and load shedding. And you can use the "extra nuclear power" when wind/solar are overproducing to pump hydro, charge batteries, or make gas for power->gas->power. Put another way: the reliable nuclear energy just subtracts a constant amount from grid demand, and the remaining wind/solar production variability is reduced proportionally.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Your proposal doesn't work, though. It requires that nuclear be subsidized by buying its power 24/7, even when much cheaper sources are available. This opportunity cost, if properly accounted for, makes the cost for the gaps that nuclear fills in for very very expensive. Trying to use the excess nuclear for hydrogen production, battery charging, etc. doesn't save you, for basically the same reason. Nuclear is expensive, and you can't shuffle that expense around under three walnut shells hoping it will somehow disappear.

adrianN 7y ago

Nuclear would have been a good solution if we started thirty years ago. By today we don't have enough time to go 100% nuclear before we emitted to much CO2. We have less than ten years of current emissions left if we want to stay below 1.5°. Building nuclear power plants takes longer than that.

RockIslandLine 7y ago
"Building nuclear power plants takes longer than that." So fix that broken process. This is a nonsense result.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Production of all carbon free energy, sources: solar + wind + nuclear, is not enough to get to 100%in a decade, unfortunately
mlyle 7y ago
We can't get to 100% with solar/wind in a decade, either. Do what we can with solar/wind, and also start building nuclear base load.
macspoofing 7y ago
>Nuclear would have been a good solution if we started thirty years ago. Talk about an understatement. Imagine the trillions of tons of CO2 that would not have been emitted into the atmosphere had the developed world invested in nuclear to the same level as France. It would maybe bought us another 50 years. Really puts into perspective the destructive force of anti-nuclear environmentalism. >We have less than ten years of current emissions left if we want to stay below 1.5° Hate to break it to you, solar/wind/battery isn't going to do it. It can't do it today, and there's nothing forthcoming to change that. Germany who went all in, is projecting 2060s as the time they wean themselves off of fossil fuels. France on the other hand is essential fossil-fuel free from power generation today, as is my home province on most days (thanks to Nuclear and Hydro) [1]. [1]http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html

pfdietz 7y ago

And we know they will cost two arms and a leg, compared to renewables.

mlyle 7y ago
Yah, I don't advocate a majority-nuclear grid. But at some point, the variability of renewables is going to start costing two arms and a leg, too. So a bit of dependable, low-carbon power in the mix sounds really good.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  But that doesn't work. Adding a little bit of nuclear to a mostly renewable grid is useless. Most of the output of the nuclear plants is thrown away when the renewables are generating, so the marginal cost of covering the remaining slack periods is hideously bad. Other sources would be cheaper (in particular, burning CO2-free hydrogen in turbines, or using natural gas w. atmospheric CO2 capture.)
  - mlyle 7y ago
    You add a bit of nuclear-- 10 to 30%. Then you size wind and solar for the remaining 70-90% of load, say 70th percentile. During the remaining 30% of the time, you use agreements that allow you to shed load and you draw upon intermittent hydroelectric resources. The solar/wind overcapacity factor and the remaining bit of battery or power->gas->power you need can be much, much smaller because the reliable nuclear base load really stretches the hydro and load shedding. And you can use the "extra nuclear power" when wind/solar are overproducing to pump hydro, charge batteries, or make gas for power->gas->power. Put another way: the reliable nuclear energy just subtracts a constant amount from grid demand, and the remaining wind/solar production variability is reduced proportionally.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      Your proposal doesn't work, though. It requires that nuclear be subsidized by buying its power 24/7, even when much cheaper sources are available. This opportunity cost, if properly accounted for, makes the cost for the gaps that nuclear fills in for very very expensive. Trying to use the excess nuclear for hydrogen production, battery charging, etc. doesn't save you, for basically the same reason. Nuclear is expensive, and you can't shuffle that expense around under three walnut shells hoping it will somehow disappear.