4 ms·

Germany basically started the shift to renewable energy. As a result, theirs is probably amongst the most expensive solar/wind build outs ever. Solar and wind

Germany basically started the shift to renewable energy. As a result, theirs is probably amongst the most expensive solar/wind build outs ever. Solar and wind energy costs have dropped exponentially since a decade ago, to the point where even if the author is correct about the German costs being 3 times more expensive than the French costs, wind and solar will be cheaper than nuclear today, since their costs have reduced dramatically in the last decade. Utility scale solar, for example, is about 90% cheaper today than it was in 2009 when Germany started building out the bulk of its solar energy infrastructure. In other words, with no other differences, simply the drop in prices of wind and solar means that wind/solar built out today would be about 2-3 times cheaper than France’s nuclear buildout. Of course, other things have indeed changed since France started building out its nuclear infrastructure. Primarily, nuclear’s negative learning curve has kicked in to the point that even after adjusting for inflation, nuclear today is far more expensive than nuclear when France built out the bulk of its nuclear energy. Finally, Germany is not even close to the best candidates for solar and wind energy, whereas France is one of the best candidates for nuclear (by definition, it’s one of 10 or so possible candidates, and any new state is likely to be worse at nuclear than France was).

unstrafed 7y ago
Solar and wind require a huge geographic footprint to generate significant energy. Because of this constraint, the cost of wind and solar is almost entirely opportunity cost, not the mere accounting cost of producing an extra panel/turbine. The basic problem is twofold: First, as you keep adding solar/wind capacity, you inevitably get diminishing returns from worse wind/sunshine conditions, so additional installation is less productive. (Think about solar panels in valleys or windmills in low-wind areas.) Second, as wind and solar cannibalize land area to provide energy, the price of that land increases substantially as other uses are displaced. For example, let's say that a country had to displace 40% of its productive arable land in order to install wind & solar. Then the price of its farmland would skyrocket as the country continued to deploy wind & solar. In both cases, solar and wind become much more expensive per deployed panel than simply the cost per panel, which is indeed pretty inexpensive. FWIW, the article attempts to make this point, but it frankly isn't very well written, and so the point is a bit hard to understand. As to your point about countries situated for nuclear vs wind+solar, what do you mean? Do you have any metrics? If I were to guess, wind and solar are extremely sensitive to the geography of a country (including physical and political-economic); I'd guess nuclear is mildly sensitive to political geography. Splitting the atom is not significantly harder in Indonesia or Peru than it is in France. The fact that much of French land area is rural might make nuclear marginally more useful there than in a place like e.g. Germany or the UK, with several major cities dotted across the relatively densely populated landscape. (Based on this inference, I'd imagine that the US, China, Canada and Russia would be the top four countries for nuclear, and Monaco or Luxembourg might be the worst?)
- adrianN 7y ago
  We have a lot of unused land that could be filled with solar panels: rooftops. Until every suitable roof is plastered with them, I don't think that we have a land issue. Similarly for wind, the problem is not that we don't have the land, the problem is NIMBYs that don't want turbines to "ruin their view".
  - natmaka 7y ago
    Off-shore wind farms haven't so much of a geographical footprint problem, and their efficiency is neat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...
    - baud147258 7y ago
      Off-shore wind farm have a geographical footprint, especially in area with heavy ship traffic
  - ithkuil 7y ago
    The cost of solar panels themselves is proportional to the surface area, but the cost of installation has to take into account the administrative units because they impact wiring and other equipment. Residential rooftops are thus the ideal surface area if reducing cost is your main metric. There are other reasons, such as decentralization, for which this kind of deployment is interesting.
    - unstrafed 7y ago
      So I don't disagree with any of what you've said. I'm glad you brought up decentralization, because that's what I think many people actually want. I can't run a nuclear reactor in my back yard, but I could put panels on my roof. In doing so, I'd be somewhat insured against blackouts, "the crap hitting the fan" or whatever else, as well as not writing a huge check each month to the power company. Some research[1] indicates that solar panels on most roofs could cover about 40% of the US's current power consumption, although the variance is fairly high (California could cover about 74% of its power demand, while Wyoming could cover only 14%). I think 40% would be a great improvement, particularly if it's fairly efficient and not too expensive; I just think we should be open to using things like nuclear for the other 60%+. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/a-solar-panel-on-every-roof-in-the-us-here-are-the-numbers/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/a-solar-panel-on-eve...
Iv 7y ago
More importantly, as a result, they will burn more fossil energy. I think that's the crucial point. No one would mock Germany for trying if it were 100% nuclear. But it chose a technology that will delay its exit from fossil fuel economy.
- lispm 7y ago
  It chose to build a completely new energy landscape, which will not only transform Germany.
- emsign 7y ago
  Wrong, Germany is burning less and less fossil fuel because of the massive increase of renewables. Germany aims at 100% renewable energy. The government has passed a law to fade out fossil energy and joined an international alliance of countries who want to do the same.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    France, often cited as a sound nuke-advocate (world tally: second nation in raw amount of grid electricity produced by nuclear plants, and first by the part of it) is in fact... ... escaping from it! A law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. 2 years later the government (lacking funds and unable to cope) reported it to 2025, then 2 years later to 2035 ("programmation pluriannuelle de l'énergie"). However the political and strategical orientation is perfectly clear, just don't believe France is on the nuke camp.
ohthehugemanate 7y ago
Can you explain what you mean by nuclear's "negative learning curve?" That's not an argument I've heard before.

unstrafed 7y ago

Solar and wind require a huge geographic footprint to generate significant energy. Because of this constraint, the cost of wind and solar is almost entirely opportunity cost, not the mere accounting cost of producing an extra panel/turbine. The basic problem is twofold: First, as you keep adding solar/wind capacity, you inevitably get diminishing returns from worse wind/sunshine conditions, so additional installation is less productive. (Think about solar panels in valleys or windmills in low-wind areas.) Second, as wind and solar cannibalize land area to provide energy, the price of that land increases substantially as other uses are displaced. For example, let's say that a country had to displace 40% of its productive arable land in order to install wind & solar. Then the price of its farmland would skyrocket as the country continued to deploy wind & solar. In both cases, solar and wind become much more expensive per deployed panel than simply the cost per panel, which is indeed pretty inexpensive. FWIW, the article attempts to make this point, but it frankly isn't very well written, and so the point is a bit hard to understand. As to your point about countries situated for nuclear vs wind+solar, what do you mean? Do you have any metrics? If I were to guess, wind and solar are extremely sensitive to the geography of a country (including physical and political-economic); I'd guess nuclear is mildly sensitive to political geography. Splitting the atom is not significantly harder in Indonesia or Peru than it is in France. The fact that much of French land area is rural might make nuclear marginally more useful there than in a place like e.g. Germany or the UK, with several major cities dotted across the relatively densely populated landscape. (Based on this inference, I'd imagine that the US, China, Canada and Russia would be the top four countries for nuclear, and Monaco or Luxembourg might be the worst?)

adrianN 7y ago
We have a lot of unused land that could be filled with solar panels: rooftops. Until every suitable roof is plastered with them, I don't think that we have a land issue. Similarly for wind, the problem is not that we don't have the land, the problem is NIMBYs that don't want turbines to "ruin their view".
- natmaka 7y ago
  Off-shore wind farms haven't so much of a geographical footprint problem, and their efficiency is neat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Off-shore wind farm have a geographical footprint, especially in area with heavy ship traffic
- ithkuil 7y ago
  The cost of solar panels themselves is proportional to the surface area, but the cost of installation has to take into account the administrative units because they impact wiring and other equipment. Residential rooftops are thus the ideal surface area if reducing cost is your main metric. There are other reasons, such as decentralization, for which this kind of deployment is interesting.
  - unstrafed 7y ago
    So I don't disagree with any of what you've said. I'm glad you brought up decentralization, because that's what I think many people actually want. I can't run a nuclear reactor in my back yard, but I could put panels on my roof. In doing so, I'd be somewhat insured against blackouts, "the crap hitting the fan" or whatever else, as well as not writing a huge check each month to the power company. Some research[1] indicates that solar panels on most roofs could cover about 40% of the US's current power consumption, although the variance is fairly high (California could cover about 74% of its power demand, while Wyoming could cover only 14%). I think 40% would be a great improvement, particularly if it's fairly efficient and not too expensive; I just think we should be open to using things like nuclear for the other 60%+. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/a-solar-panel-on-every-roof-in-the-us-here-are-the-numbers/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/a-solar-panel-on-eve...

Iv 7y ago

More importantly, as a result, they will burn more fossil energy. I think that's the crucial point. No one would mock Germany for trying if it were 100% nuclear. But it chose a technology that will delay its exit from fossil fuel economy.

lispm 7y ago
It chose to build a completely new energy landscape, which will not only transform Germany.
emsign 7y ago
Wrong, Germany is burning less and less fossil fuel because of the massive increase of renewables. Germany aims at 100% renewable energy. The government has passed a law to fade out fossil energy and joined an international alliance of countries who want to do the same.
- natmaka 7y ago
  France, often cited as a sound nuke-advocate (world tally: second nation in raw amount of grid electricity produced by nuclear plants, and first by the part of it) is in fact... ... escaping from it! A law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. 2 years later the government (lacking funds and unable to cope) reported it to 2025, then 2 years later to 2035 ("programmation pluriannuelle de l'énergie"). However the political and strategical orientation is perfectly clear, just don't believe France is on the nuke camp.

ohthehugemanate 7y ago

Can you explain what you mean by nuclear's "negative learning curve?" That's not an argument I've heard before.