4 ms·

Nuclear is an economic un-reality. In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. We can develop the next generation of nucle

Nuclear is an economic un-reality. In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. We can develop the next generation of nuclear infrastructure and have safe and affordable generation. Without that, nuclear is an un-economic pipe-dream that gets more expensive as renewable generation gets more affordable. Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale.

manfredo 7y ago
> In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. Not just in theory, France did exactly that and did it successfully. They're paying half the cost of electricity as Germany while emitting less than half as much carbon. South Korea has also made large gains in nuclear power. US nuclear power would have been considerably more cost effective if plants weren't closed before the end of their planned lifecycle - the "nuclear plants are expensive, let's close them" meme is self fulfilling. > Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale. Places like California and Germany have attempted this. They have both realized that efficient storage remains a fantasy and use gas plants to provide energy when intermittent sources do not produce power. Most renewable energy projects are, in reality, combined cycle gas plants supplemented by renewables. This is good, because combined cycle gas plants are much cleaner than the coal plants they are replacing. But they still emit carbon and in Europe's case creates dependency on Russia for energy.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  California, at least its CAISO grid [1], is more like "renewables supplemented by combined cycle gas plants." The change is fairly recent. Annual real power [2] generated by gas plants in CAISO reached its all time high in 2014 at 11707 MW. In 2014 generation from renewables was only 5418 MW. Renewables have increased and gas has declined every year since. The crossover first happened in 2017 when gas power dipped to 7396 MW and renewables rose to 9671 MW. For 2019, gas is down to 6835 MW (to date) and renewables are up to 10507 MW (also to date). Sorry that I don't have a quick citation for these numbers, but the raw data is here: http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ I've downloaded all the daily *.txt files and cobbled together big CSVs from them to track these sorts of statistics. [1] http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx [2] Annual real power meaning number of megawatt hours generated in the year divided by number of hours in the year; this implicitly accounts for differing capacity factors.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    This directly contradicts the first results I find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/File%3ACalifornia_Electricity_Generation_Sources_Pie_Chart.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/... Solar and wind add up to 25.5% of generation, as compared to over 40% natural gas. Add hydro and geothermal and renewables rise to 43%, still far from the 100:70 renewable to gas ratio you claimed. But hydroelectric and geothermal are geographically limited, the plan is still to build more solar and wind, with gas plants for use when demand exceeds the renewables' production.
    - philipkglass 7y ago
      That chart says that natural gas was 43.8% in 2018. It also gives: Solar, 19.0% Hydro, 12.3% Wind, 6.5% Geothermal, 5.7% Wood/biomass, 2.7% Add those renewable sources together and you get 46.2%, more (but only slightly more) than natural gas. It looks like the chart-maker's data source is the Energy Information Administration. The greater dominance of renewables that I found may be because I'm just tracking the CAISO grid. The EIA would have data covering Southern California as well.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      As far as MISO (not CAISO) goes, fantasy is a bit much to say, see https://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid-an-economic-analysis-of-energy-storage-opportunities/ https://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid...
- renox 7y ago
  > France did exactly that and did it successfully. They're paying half the cost of electricity as Germany while emitting less than half as much carbon. Successfully.. Maybe! The cost of electricity we pay include the planned cost for the end of life (dismantling the plants, etc), are the planned costs realistic? That's a BIG assumption, I think that the new nuclear plant (EPR) is 4 times over budget and 8-year late and we have never dismantled a real big nuclear plant..
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Yes, costs include decommissioning. I have no idea where the idea that large nuclear plants have never been decommissioned - dozens have. Total costs exceeded projections by ~40 billion euros. But in aggregate France's nuclear projects are dirt cheap compared to the hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to be spent in other countries' non-nuclear decarbonization plans. And it's offset by the 3.3 billion euros of power exported to neighboring countries that fail to meet their energy needs through non-nuclear energy (namely Germany which foolishly decided to prematurely close it's nuclear plants). France has created electricity generation that is both cheap and carbon free.

manfredo 7y ago

> In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. Not just in theory, France did exactly that and did it successfully. They're paying half the cost of electricity as Germany while emitting less than half as much carbon. South Korea has also made large gains in nuclear power. US nuclear power would have been considerably more cost effective if plants weren't closed before the end of their planned lifecycle - the "nuclear plants are expensive, let's close them" meme is self fulfilling. > Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale. Places like California and Germany have attempted this. They have both realized that efficient storage remains a fantasy and use gas plants to provide energy when intermittent sources do not produce power. Most renewable energy projects are, in reality, combined cycle gas plants supplemented by renewables. This is good, because combined cycle gas plants are much cleaner than the coal plants they are replacing. But they still emit carbon and in Europe's case creates dependency on Russia for energy.

philipkglass 7y ago
California, at least its CAISO grid [1], is more like "renewables supplemented by combined cycle gas plants." The change is fairly recent. Annual real power [2] generated by gas plants in CAISO reached its all time high in 2014 at 11707 MW. In 2014 generation from renewables was only 5418 MW. Renewables have increased and gas has declined every year since. The crossover first happened in 2017 when gas power dipped to 7396 MW and renewables rose to 9671 MW. For 2019, gas is down to 6835 MW (to date) and renewables are up to 10507 MW (also to date). Sorry that I don't have a quick citation for these numbers, but the raw data is here: http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ I've downloaded all the daily *.txt files and cobbled together big CSVs from them to track these sorts of statistics. [1] http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx [2] Annual real power meaning number of megawatt hours generated in the year divided by number of hours in the year; this implicitly accounts for differing capacity factors.
- manfredo 7y ago
  This directly contradicts the first results I find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/File%3ACalifornia_Electricity_Generation_Sources_Pie_Chart.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/... Solar and wind add up to 25.5% of generation, as compared to over 40% natural gas. Add hydro and geothermal and renewables rise to 43%, still far from the 100:70 renewable to gas ratio you claimed. But hydroelectric and geothermal are geographically limited, the plan is still to build more solar and wind, with gas plants for use when demand exceeds the renewables' production.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    That chart says that natural gas was 43.8% in 2018. It also gives: Solar, 19.0% Hydro, 12.3% Wind, 6.5% Geothermal, 5.7% Wood/biomass, 2.7% Add those renewable sources together and you get 46.2%, more (but only slightly more) than natural gas. It looks like the chart-maker's data source is the Energy Information Administration. The greater dominance of renewables that I found may be because I'm just tracking the CAISO grid. The EIA would have data covering Southern California as well.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    As far as MISO (not CAISO) goes, fantasy is a bit much to say, see https://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid-an-economic-analysis-of-energy-storage-opportunities/ https://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid...
renox 7y ago
> France did exactly that and did it successfully. They're paying half the cost of electricity as Germany while emitting less than half as much carbon. Successfully.. Maybe! The cost of electricity we pay include the planned cost for the end of life (dismantling the plants, etc), are the planned costs realistic? That's a BIG assumption, I think that the new nuclear plant (EPR) is 4 times over budget and 8-year late and we have never dismantled a real big nuclear plant..
- manfredo 7y ago
  Yes, costs include decommissioning. I have no idea where the idea that large nuclear plants have never been decommissioned - dozens have. Total costs exceeded projections by ~40 billion euros. But in aggregate France's nuclear projects are dirt cheap compared to the hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to be spent in other countries' non-nuclear decarbonization plans. And it's offset by the 3.3 billion euros of power exported to neighboring countries that fail to meet their energy needs through non-nuclear energy (namely Germany which foolishly decided to prematurely close it's nuclear plants). France has created electricity generation that is both cheap and carbon free.