6 ms·

I'm super pro-renewables. The fact is that northern Europe is going to need nuclear to completely decarbonize (which is what is required to meet our goals). Be

I'm super pro-renewables. The fact is that northern Europe is going to need nuclear to completely decarbonize (which is what is required to meet our goals). Because of the long winters, to do the same with wind/solar will require about 3-5 times as much cost as you might think at first. You need to provide extra capacity to artificially increase effective capacity factor, and then you need about 48 hours of storage. Also possible, but about the same price, is hydrogen for seasonal storage for winter. ...and generally speaking, effectively any carbonfree project being built now needs to be supported. We need everything. Including a lot more off-shore wind.

davedx 7y ago
> and then you need about 48 hours of storage I think it's even longer than that, unfortunately... of course, it depends how much over capacity you have, but those cold fronts in N Europe can kill wind speed for weeks on end sometimes IIRC. It is a huge problem for us to solve.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  If everyone has an electric car then, in principle, that battery can be used to keep your house alive for quite a long time. And of course once the battery capacity has declined so that you are no longer satisfied with the car's range you can repurpose the battery for home use to store the output of solar panels on your roof. It's a huge problem in terms of time and finance but not a difficult technological one.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    That's great, but large portions of the population live in apartments in those areas of Europe.
  - pwiecz 7y ago
    I hope very few people will own electric cars in the future (or any car whatsoever). We don't need more cars on the road - we barely can squeeze them on our roads now. We need good, fast, ubiquitous public transport system.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
I don't think the need for nuclear is much of a fact. It's more wishful thinking. Norway gets by without it and uses wind and hydro (mostly) for most of their electricity needs. They have no need for nuclear whatsoever and they export energy. Iceland is famous for using geothermal. Scotland exports wind power and generates more power than they need that way. Also, places like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden are relying on lots of wind (on and offshore). The energy markets in Europe are connected and the fastest growing source of energy is basically wind. Coal is shrinking at this point and the enthusiasm for building new gas plants is likewise melting away rapidly as their cost seems to be on the high side compared to clean energy solutions. It will take decades to get rid of both of course. Sweden and Finland actually both have nuclear plants. Finland even built a new one recently. But in general, nuclear is on the way out in Europe as there is no political will to commit to building new plants across the continent. Older plants are shutting down one by one. France has a lot of aging nuclear plants and they don't seem to be building new ones and are actively considering shutting a few down (https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...). Apparently keeping their existing capacity online would take tens/hundreds of billions and the political appetite for those investments is pretty low. Many EU countries are on a path to completely clean energy and it does not seem to involve building new nuclear plants.
- Maakuth 7y ago
  I think increased interconnects are the way to go, but don't mind adding nuclear capacity. It's worth noting though, that Norway is quite an exception in their hydro capacity, as there is so much height differences in their terrain. Increasing hydro capacity is also pretty hard these days due to enormous environmental cost and the fact that most of the viable sites are already built.
  - TKWasRight 7y ago
    > "I think increased interconnects are the way to go..." What do you mean by this?
    - 7y ago
RandomGenerated 7y ago
Isn't that offset by the long summers? If you mention district heating then yes, I agree

davedx 7y ago

> and then you need about 48 hours of storage I think it's even longer than that, unfortunately... of course, it depends how much over capacity you have, but those cold fronts in N Europe can kill wind speed for weeks on end sometimes IIRC. It is a huge problem for us to solve.

kwhitefoot 7y ago
If everyone has an electric car then, in principle, that battery can be used to keep your house alive for quite a long time. And of course once the battery capacity has declined so that you are no longer satisfied with the car's range you can repurpose the battery for home use to store the output of solar panels on your roof. It's a huge problem in terms of time and finance but not a difficult technological one.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  That's great, but large portions of the population live in apartments in those areas of Europe.
- pwiecz 7y ago
  I hope very few people will own electric cars in the future (or any car whatsoever). We don't need more cars on the road - we barely can squeeze them on our roads now. We need good, fast, ubiquitous public transport system.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

I don't think the need for nuclear is much of a fact. It's more wishful thinking. Norway gets by without it and uses wind and hydro (mostly) for most of their electricity needs. They have no need for nuclear whatsoever and they export energy. Iceland is famous for using geothermal. Scotland exports wind power and generates more power than they need that way. Also, places like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden are relying on lots of wind (on and offshore). The energy markets in Europe are connected and the fastest growing source of energy is basically wind. Coal is shrinking at this point and the enthusiasm for building new gas plants is likewise melting away rapidly as their cost seems to be on the high side compared to clean energy solutions. It will take decades to get rid of both of course. Sweden and Finland actually both have nuclear plants. Finland even built a new one recently. But in general, nuclear is on the way out in Europe as there is no political will to commit to building new plants across the continent. Older plants are shutting down one by one. France has a lot of aging nuclear plants and they don't seem to be building new ones and are actively considering shutting a few down (https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...). Apparently keeping their existing capacity online would take tens/hundreds of billions and the political appetite for those investments is pretty low. Many EU countries are on a path to completely clean energy and it does not seem to involve building new nuclear plants.

Maakuth 7y ago
I think increased interconnects are the way to go, but don't mind adding nuclear capacity. It's worth noting though, that Norway is quite an exception in their hydro capacity, as there is so much height differences in their terrain. Increasing hydro capacity is also pretty hard these days due to enormous environmental cost and the fact that most of the viable sites are already built.
- TKWasRight 7y ago
  > "I think increased interconnects are the way to go..." What do you mean by this?
  - 7y ago

RandomGenerated 7y ago

Isn't that offset by the long summers? If you mention district heating then yes, I agree