5 ms·

> I am now pro-nuclear—at least as an intermediate technology until we really get renewables, and, as you say, BETTER BATTERIES, sorted out. > An argument I ha

> I am now pro-nuclear—at least as an intermediate technology until we really get renewables, and, as you say, BETTER BATTERIES, sorted out. > An argument I haven’t seen before is that no other clean energy source can scale up as quickly as nuclear—IF the reactors are standardized. Isn't this why we won't get nuclear power? It's always been my impression than nuclear is more financial challenging than technical, it takes forever to recoup the initial cost of the reactor and by the time it does, we will want to move onto 'cleaner/safer' renewables. Perhaps if public perception changed considerably and we were willing to have our base energy load (what coal & natural gas* provide today) come from nuclear. I just don't think nuclear makes financial sense currently if it's only intended to be temporary.

xyzzyz 7y ago
So far, we don’t have any technology even in design phase, much less in the deployment stage, to deal with the storage problem. For our current needs, lithium batteries simply will not do, and we do not have enough viable sites or water for pumped storage either. There is nothing suggesting we’re going to solve the storage problem in our lifetimes, so nuclear is really the only viable solution to get off fossil fuels completely.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Large grids (with DC interconnects) make the storage problem less (because the covariance falls between different generation sources and demand sinks), as do a diversity of approaches (e.g. solar, wind, hydro; only tapping hydro when there's a shortfall). People will point to power->gas->power as a technology for this, and I do think that's something we should be pursuing... It is probably viable for some fraction of fill-in power. I still think some nuclear in the mix makes things much easier, though as some people point out the economics of nuclear get even worse when there's a lot of renewables on the grid (because nuclear needs to run 24/7 to amortize extensive construction costs, and a lot of that time power is basically free).
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Flow batteries, thermal salt storage and simple overcapacity + long-distance transmission are all possibilities. There's an 800 MWh / 200 MW Vanadium flow battery being built in Dalian, China, for example. Thermal salt storage is already coupled to thermal solar plants in Spain, but could be run with a heat pump, using any power source. There are actually several promising technologies. It's not as dire as you're suggesting.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    You could just keep the combined cycle peeking plants around for a while while figuring out the load cycle and storage. It's pretty simple since they are already built.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  We don't have any nuclear capacity to deploy cost effectively anywhere near a planning table. The reality with nuclear is that it is already more expensive than anything else out there while clean energy solutions are on the other side of the spectrum and dropping in price fast. That makes investing in nuclear a spectacularly bad idea. So, from a price point of view, nuclear is completely pointless and there don't seem to be any plans that don't come with multi billion $ price tags. Hence the snail pace at which new reactors are coming online for the last few decades. Many countries bothering with this do this for military reasons rather than cost reasons. Also, what storage problem? This argument seems to pop up in a lot of HN threads where somebody just pulls this out of the head "We must do nuclear because OMG storage". Storage is an super easy problem with plenty of low tech solutions. You are confusing lack of demand with a lack of possible solutions. As demand ramps up, there will be gazillions of companies making good money using all kinds of creative plans to store energy. Nuclear waste storage on the other hand is something most nuclear proponents don't like to talk about because it involves a lot of waffling about the fact that we've just been dumping it in temporary sites all over the place. E.g. France and a few other countries used to dump it in the oceans until people figured out that was a pretty horrible idea. Some countries still consider this a plan they can get away with. Fluctuations in solar and wind happen (locally). But that's easily worked around by simply using cables to move power around. There's always wind somewhere and even with clouds, you still get some solar panel output. At 10x price differences you could just buy 10x more of them. 10x would be overkill. But just driving the point home that this is a complete non issue from both a cost and technical perspective. Storage is needed for short term fluctuations. The rest we can handle with overcapacity and interconnecting sites of production and some battery deployments.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Also, what storage problem? This argument seems to pop up in a lot of HN threads where somebody just pulls this out of the head "We must do nuclear because OMG storage". Storage is an super easy problem with plenty of low tech solutions. Can you name one solution that will allow us to store, say, 3 days worth of US daily energy use? Please, show me the math. I did the math and it didn’t seem even close to feasible given today technology. E.g. France and a few other countries used to dump it in the oceans until people figured out that was a pretty horrible idea. It’s horrible, because throwing away what mostly is still good fuel that’s not economical to reprocess compared to fresh fuel is stupid. It’s not really horrible otherwise. Storage is needed for short term fluctuations. The rest we can handle with overcapacity and interconnecting sites of production and some battery deployments. How much overcapacity exactly we need with the amount of storage you assume? Please, show me the math. I did the math and with feasible amount of storage, the amount of extra capacity required is insane.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
> Isn't this why we won't get nuclear power? It's always been my impression than nuclear is more financial challenging than technical, it takes forever to recoup the initial cost of the reactor and by the time it does, we will want to move onto 'cleaner/safer' renewables. Does anyone see the contradiction with the leaders on the left calling for "unprecedented action" like the Green New Deal, but then they object to nuclear with the argument that it requires too much government oversight and financing?
- cglace 7y ago
  I think the problem is that the left has always been against nuclear. So starting with nuclear would leave you without support from the left or right.
- rayiner 7y ago
  It’s because the Green New Deal is, as its name implies, primarily about rehabilitating socialism, not addressing climate change. Start reading AOC’s bill, at page 3: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.go.... The whereas clauses spend more time addressing things like wealth inequality and labor protections than the scientific findings of the IPCC. For example, section 4(H): > (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaing wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States; Can anyone seriously look at provisions like this and say the Green New Deal is actually about climate change and not socialism? Nuclear (or technology in general) doesn’t give you a big new stick to for addressing, for example, the declining influence of labor unions, or wealth inequality. Technology is something you typically do with markets and investors. That’s why technological solutions have fallen into disfavor on the left.

xyzzyz 7y ago

So far, we don’t have any technology even in design phase, much less in the deployment stage, to deal with the storage problem. For our current needs, lithium batteries simply will not do, and we do not have enough viable sites or water for pumped storage either. There is nothing suggesting we’re going to solve the storage problem in our lifetimes, so nuclear is really the only viable solution to get off fossil fuels completely.

mlyle 7y ago
Large grids (with DC interconnects) make the storage problem less (because the covariance falls between different generation sources and demand sinks), as do a diversity of approaches (e.g. solar, wind, hydro; only tapping hydro when there's a shortfall). People will point to power->gas->power as a technology for this, and I do think that's something we should be pursuing... It is probably viable for some fraction of fill-in power. I still think some nuclear in the mix makes things much easier, though as some people point out the economics of nuclear get even worse when there's a lot of renewables on the grid (because nuclear needs to run 24/7 to amortize extensive construction costs, and a lot of that time power is basically free).
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Flow batteries, thermal salt storage and simple overcapacity + long-distance transmission are all possibilities. There's an 800 MWh / 200 MW Vanadium flow battery being built in Dalian, China, for example. Thermal salt storage is already coupled to thermal solar plants in Spain, but could be run with a heat pump, using any power source. There are actually several promising technologies. It's not as dire as you're suggesting.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  You could just keep the combined cycle peeking plants around for a while while figuring out the load cycle and storage. It's pretty simple since they are already built.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
We don't have any nuclear capacity to deploy cost effectively anywhere near a planning table. The reality with nuclear is that it is already more expensive than anything else out there while clean energy solutions are on the other side of the spectrum and dropping in price fast. That makes investing in nuclear a spectacularly bad idea. So, from a price point of view, nuclear is completely pointless and there don't seem to be any plans that don't come with multi billion $ price tags. Hence the snail pace at which new reactors are coming online for the last few decades. Many countries bothering with this do this for military reasons rather than cost reasons. Also, what storage problem? This argument seems to pop up in a lot of HN threads where somebody just pulls this out of the head "We must do nuclear because OMG storage". Storage is an super easy problem with plenty of low tech solutions. You are confusing lack of demand with a lack of possible solutions. As demand ramps up, there will be gazillions of companies making good money using all kinds of creative plans to store energy. Nuclear waste storage on the other hand is something most nuclear proponents don't like to talk about because it involves a lot of waffling about the fact that we've just been dumping it in temporary sites all over the place. E.g. France and a few other countries used to dump it in the oceans until people figured out that was a pretty horrible idea. Some countries still consider this a plan they can get away with. Fluctuations in solar and wind happen (locally). But that's easily worked around by simply using cables to move power around. There's always wind somewhere and even with clouds, you still get some solar panel output. At 10x price differences you could just buy 10x more of them. 10x would be overkill. But just driving the point home that this is a complete non issue from both a cost and technical perspective. Storage is needed for short term fluctuations. The rest we can handle with overcapacity and interconnecting sites of production and some battery deployments.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Also, what storage problem? This argument seems to pop up in a lot of HN threads where somebody just pulls this out of the head "We must do nuclear because OMG storage". Storage is an super easy problem with plenty of low tech solutions. Can you name one solution that will allow us to store, say, 3 days worth of US daily energy use? Please, show me the math. I did the math and it didn’t seem even close to feasible given today technology. E.g. France and a few other countries used to dump it in the oceans until people figured out that was a pretty horrible idea. It’s horrible, because throwing away what mostly is still good fuel that’s not economical to reprocess compared to fresh fuel is stupid. It’s not really horrible otherwise. Storage is needed for short term fluctuations. The rest we can handle with overcapacity and interconnecting sites of production and some battery deployments. How much overcapacity exactly we need with the amount of storage you assume? Please, show me the math. I did the math and with feasible amount of storage, the amount of extra capacity required is insane.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

> Isn't this why we won't get nuclear power? It's always been my impression than nuclear is more financial challenging than technical, it takes forever to recoup the initial cost of the reactor and by the time it does, we will want to move onto 'cleaner/safer' renewables. Does anyone see the contradiction with the leaders on the left calling for "unprecedented action" like the Green New Deal, but then they object to nuclear with the argument that it requires too much government oversight and financing?

cglace 7y ago
I think the problem is that the left has always been against nuclear. So starting with nuclear would leave you without support from the left or right.
rayiner 7y ago
It’s because the Green New Deal is, as its name implies, primarily about rehabilitating socialism, not addressing climate change. Start reading AOC’s bill, at page 3: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.go.... The whereas clauses spend more time addressing things like wealth inequality and labor protections than the scientific findings of the IPCC. For example, section 4(H): > (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaing wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States; Can anyone seriously look at provisions like this and say the Green New Deal is actually about climate change and not socialism? Nuclear (or technology in general) doesn’t give you a big new stick to for addressing, for example, the declining influence of labor unions, or wealth inequality. Technology is something you typically do with markets and investors. That’s why technological solutions have fallen into disfavor on the left.