3 ms·

This term "astronomical" applies no more to the scale of renewables needing built than it would nuclear. The existence of a somewhat related pdf doesn't make th

This term "astronomical" applies no more to the scale of renewables needing built than it would nuclear. The existence of a somewhat related pdf doesn't make the prophecy realistic, that big challenges are more likely to show up for future renewable builds than for nuclear builds. The actual situation is nuclear can hardly get built currently due to "economic, regulatory, or environmental challenges" while renewables can and already have big fleet sizes.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Nuclear went through its economic, regulatory, and environmental challenges as its fleet sizes grew (at 20 GWe low-carbon generation/year for 12 years at its peak), and is still struggling. Intermittent renewables may have their own set of parallel issues. Exhibit A, of course, is [1]. As renewables scale today, we're scaling high-carbon fracked natural gas backup with them. That chicken probably will come home to roost as we continue in this ramp up. Proponents say that the fracked gas that's inherently tied to intermittent sources is ok because it's a bridge and that the bridge is definitively better than low-carbon 24/7 nuclear. I think that statement is highly debatable. Given how astronomical the challenge is (replace 84% of the world's energy with low-carbon alternatives, then scale up by 2-5x to allow energy impoverished areas to choose how they want to live their lives, then scale up more to start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere), we shouldn't put renewables against nuclear power. We should be looking for low-carbon partnerships. Let's find ways to pair nuclear better with intermittent renewables so we don't have to build massive infrastructure of fracked gas. [1] https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2019/03/01/californias-san-bernardino-county-slams-the-brakes-on-big-solar-projects/ https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2019/03/01/californias-san-b...
- strainer 7y ago
  The nuclear fleets peak was decades ago when environmental and safety regulation was more permissive than it was today, and the long term problems and threats were not as well known. Even a handful of articles about planning applications being declined is not evidence of your prophecy of significant price increases for solar and wind bound to show up, or just "big challenges" as you put it as indistinctly as it is unlikely. Renewables are competing against nuclear power for finance and resources and nuclear is competing against renewables. Nuclear is never economically dispatchable, it does not compete for demand only while renewables are low, and renewables do not want to split supply with nuclear. They are competitors. So taking about astronomicals shouldn't fool anyone otherwise, but at this time its all the idea of cheap clean safe nuclear future has to run on. Nuclear plants need sited away from population centers and on top of significant water sources and in regions where their local heat output will not excarbate problems of heat waves. They also require permanent protection in periods of national unrest since the costs of accident and sabotage can be astronomical Solar panels and windpower will continue to get cheaper to buy and install, batteries too. Oceanic wind, solar and syn-gas rigs are a far more desirable and attainable long term development goal than a further generation of hundreds or thousands of water boiling top security nuclear plants for the fuel and power needs of the developing world.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    > The nuclear fleets peak was decades ago when environmental and safety regulation was more permissive than it was today, and the long term problems and threats were not as well known. That doesn't stand to evidence. The Browns Ferry fire in 1975 was the real tipping point for regulations. After 1979, the regulations and QA requirements were very serious. The improved quality cost the plants more up front but they benefited dramatically from the extra quality by increasing capacity factors from 60% all the way to 90%, becoming cash cows in the early 2000s before fracked gas pulled the rug out on electricity prices. By your same argument, I can just as easily dismiss your prophecy that inherently intermittent energy sources will scale to world scale with no serious environmental, regulatory, or economic challenges. I might also point you to Energy Return On Investment studies with high penetrations of energy storage. Have you looked into that? I recommend it. You might also want to look into economic analysis from NREL on intermittent energy sources at high degrees of penetration. We need at least 10x more wind and solar. I also think it's appropriate to engage the only 24/7 low-footprint low-carbon tool we know of: nuclear fission. No point in tying our hands because some people feel that they don't like nuclear. Nuclear data is in. It's super low carbon. It's very expandable. And it's very low-impact. EROI is the biggest argument against what you're saying. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926# https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1...!
    - strainer 7y ago
      My prophecy that solar and renewables will continue to scale is based on their performance to date which is not so much prophecy as standard extrapolation. Your proclaimed "serious environmental, regulatory, or economic challenges" are so far entirely mysterious which are just somehow or other likely to "show up". Wouldn't you be more comfortable suggesting things will continue until they level out at some point? (like they did with nuclear) than hoping something huge will "show up" for renewables so that somehow nuclear can catch up. Any time that nuclear might catch up - constant output wont be needed or purchasable at constant price. It will compete with storage and carbon neutral fuels for the high prices and with renewables for the low. Its going to need a massive economic breakthrough, which its already had decades to try and develope. Its not some people not liking nuclear that is its problem, its few people are willing to pay for nuclear. Nuclears land, water, staffing and security costs are not low impact and not cheap which is why its not winning investments now, despite the powerful politics which likes to spend big money on near permanent assignments, and plenty of PR, nobody can justify it. EROI of renewables is fine and continuing to improve. Nuclear's calculations always assume the plants will stay competitive and be run for 40+ years at full capacity (hello renewable competition again). Renewables assume the equipment will not be extended after 20 or cheaply upgraded, but they don't need to fiddle benchmarks they are already far quicker and cheaper to build and run. Fwiw good luck with something showing up.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Nuclear went through its economic, regulatory, and environmental challenges as its fleet sizes grew (at 20 GWe low-carbon generation/year for 12 years at its peak), and is still struggling. Intermittent renewables may have their own set of parallel issues. Exhibit A, of course, is [1]. As renewables scale today, we're scaling high-carbon fracked natural gas backup with them. That chicken probably will come home to roost as we continue in this ramp up. Proponents say that the fracked gas that's inherently tied to intermittent sources is ok because it's a bridge and that the bridge is definitively better than low-carbon 24/7 nuclear. I think that statement is highly debatable. Given how astronomical the challenge is (replace 84% of the world's energy with low-carbon alternatives, then scale up by 2-5x to allow energy impoverished areas to choose how they want to live their lives, then scale up more to start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere), we shouldn't put renewables against nuclear power. We should be looking for low-carbon partnerships. Let's find ways to pair nuclear better with intermittent renewables so we don't have to build massive infrastructure of fracked gas. [1] https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2019/03/01/californias-san-bernardino-county-slams-the-brakes-on-big-solar-projects/ https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2019/03/01/californias-san-b...

strainer 7y ago
The nuclear fleets peak was decades ago when environmental and safety regulation was more permissive than it was today, and the long term problems and threats were not as well known. Even a handful of articles about planning applications being declined is not evidence of your prophecy of significant price increases for solar and wind bound to show up, or just "big challenges" as you put it as indistinctly as it is unlikely. Renewables are competing against nuclear power for finance and resources and nuclear is competing against renewables. Nuclear is never economically dispatchable, it does not compete for demand only while renewables are low, and renewables do not want to split supply with nuclear. They are competitors. So taking about astronomicals shouldn't fool anyone otherwise, but at this time its all the idea of cheap clean safe nuclear future has to run on. Nuclear plants need sited away from population centers and on top of significant water sources and in regions where their local heat output will not excarbate problems of heat waves. They also require permanent protection in periods of national unrest since the costs of accident and sabotage can be astronomical Solar panels and windpower will continue to get cheaper to buy and install, batteries too. Oceanic wind, solar and syn-gas rigs are a far more desirable and attainable long term development goal than a further generation of hundreds or thousands of water boiling top security nuclear plants for the fuel and power needs of the developing world.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  > The nuclear fleets peak was decades ago when environmental and safety regulation was more permissive than it was today, and the long term problems and threats were not as well known. That doesn't stand to evidence. The Browns Ferry fire in 1975 was the real tipping point for regulations. After 1979, the regulations and QA requirements were very serious. The improved quality cost the plants more up front but they benefited dramatically from the extra quality by increasing capacity factors from 60% all the way to 90%, becoming cash cows in the early 2000s before fracked gas pulled the rug out on electricity prices. By your same argument, I can just as easily dismiss your prophecy that inherently intermittent energy sources will scale to world scale with no serious environmental, regulatory, or economic challenges. I might also point you to Energy Return On Investment studies with high penetrations of energy storage. Have you looked into that? I recommend it. You might also want to look into economic analysis from NREL on intermittent energy sources at high degrees of penetration. We need at least 10x more wind and solar. I also think it's appropriate to engage the only 24/7 low-footprint low-carbon tool we know of: nuclear fission. No point in tying our hands because some people feel that they don't like nuclear. Nuclear data is in. It's super low carbon. It's very expandable. And it's very low-impact. EROI is the biggest argument against what you're saying. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926# https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1...!
  - strainer 7y ago
    My prophecy that solar and renewables will continue to scale is based on their performance to date which is not so much prophecy as standard extrapolation. Your proclaimed "serious environmental, regulatory, or economic challenges" are so far entirely mysterious which are just somehow or other likely to "show up". Wouldn't you be more comfortable suggesting things will continue until they level out at some point? (like they did with nuclear) than hoping something huge will "show up" for renewables so that somehow nuclear can catch up. Any time that nuclear might catch up - constant output wont be needed or purchasable at constant price. It will compete with storage and carbon neutral fuels for the high prices and with renewables for the low. Its going to need a massive economic breakthrough, which its already had decades to try and develope. Its not some people not liking nuclear that is its problem, its few people are willing to pay for nuclear. Nuclears land, water, staffing and security costs are not low impact and not cheap which is why its not winning investments now, despite the powerful politics which likes to spend big money on near permanent assignments, and plenty of PR, nobody can justify it. EROI of renewables is fine and continuing to improve. Nuclear's calculations always assume the plants will stay competitive and be run for 40+ years at full capacity (hello renewable competition again). Renewables assume the equipment will not be extended after 20 or cheaply upgraded, but they don't need to fiddle benchmarks they are already far quicker and cheaper to build and run. Fwiw good luck with something showing up.