9 ms·
We can use nuclear ️ to lower carbon emissions.
by godzillabrennus 6y ago
We can use nuclear ️ to lower carbon emissions.
- pfdietz 6y agoUsing renewables would be more cost effective, even up to 100% replacement of fossil fuels. Cost of storage does not change this conclusion.
- aksss 6y agoThere is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&t=855s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information sharing.
- pfdietz 6y agoYou're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illusion. Nuclear is now a dead technology walking. And renewables (and associated technologies like batteries and electrolyzers) continue to show cost declines at a rate nuclear could only dream of. BTW, summarize the argument in the video. I don't waste my time watching video links.
- unFou 6y agoI'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.
- simonh 6y agoGermany jumped the gun. They started investing heavily in renewables when they were still very costly and storage technologies weren’t practical. Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years.
- g8oz 6y agoIt’s been argued that their “premature” investment primed the pump for renewables globally.
- pfdietz 6y agoYou're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now. Going forward, even France is having a very hard time building reactors, and is finding renewables are cheaper. This is one reason why France's nuclear industry is in such trouble. Germany deliberately pushed renewables in order to send them down their experience curves. This was spectacularly successful, but it has come at a high price to their consumers, who are still paying that down. The rest of us have reaped the benefit of far lower renewable costs.
- yongjik 6y agoOkay, then let's look at Japan, which pretty much shut down nuclear in 2011. And this is the result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#/media/File:Japan_annual_total_net_electricity_generation_by_fuel_type_in_2000_through_2017.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#/media/File:Ja... Japan, one of the most technologically developed place in the world, cannot use renewables when they shut down nuclear. Instead they turn back to coal. I'm not saying renewables are always inferior - e.g., California would be a perfect place for solar. But in every story I've heard of, when nuclear power is turned off fossil fuels pick up the slack.
- 6y ago
- airstrike 6y agoHere's a summary of the video, posted as one of the top comments on YT: https://sundaynewsletter.com/february-video-summaries/vaclav-smil-lecture-on-energy-transitions/ https://sundaynewsletter.com/february-video-summaries/vaclav...
- pfdietz 6y agoNowhere does he make the case that 100% renewables is impossible. It is, of course, a tall order, but maintaining and growing a global energy infrastructure OF ANY KIND is a tall order. Smil has argued that energy transitions happen only slowly, but I think he's being misled because the current rate of cost decline in renewables is unprecedented in its speed, as is the willingness of increasing numbers of countries to impose CO2 taxes or the equivalent.
- Gibbon1 6y agoSecond factor is historically new energy sources required rolling out different technologies to utilize it. And you often couldn't switch back and forth. Renewables are generally about electric power and electron is an electron and we already have fully built out distribution networks. And you're right about regulatory pressure being a big motivator.
- aksss 6y agoThis is great. I think the summary understates his points regarding the burden on energy demand that will come into play over next several decades by developing regions. The numbers are astonishing. Also underrepresented are his comments on just how unrealistic the assumptions are in the models calling for temperature reduction, specifically about the implications for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Reducing energy consumption (whether through bans or price hikes) has a known humanitarian impact in present terms. The idea that you can convince your poor neighbor that he doesn't really need to eat better or have access to more resources is a tricky problem. pfdietz, I think the case is made quite plainly in his presentation that renewables cannot catch up to much less displace ("100%") fossil fuels anytime in the near future. If you don't see that in the sum of what he presents in the notes, I'd encourage you to watch the source material to hear him say it, sector by sector. It's full of real data from a guy that's been studying energy use in human civilization for many decades. This link has some of the same info in PDF form: http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/JPM.2019.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/JPM.2019.pd...
- aksss 6y agoWhat is wrong in what I have said?
- pfdietz 6y agoThis statement: "There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution." is utter nonsense. I mean, it's as if you're asking me what's wrong with a statement that the Earth is flat.
- aksss 6y agoIt's simply this: our DAILY growing (not declining, not stable) demand for hydrocarbons is so profoundly huge, that the improvements in renewables (even if taken at generous face value) do not dent it today nor will they in the future even with the most generous assumptions about efficiency and storage improvements. This is just data you can look up to see the trends for daily barrel of oil demand, and the improvement rate of solar/wind and storage efficiencies. The numbers are the truth, not hope. Developing societies such as Africa, India and China are increasing their consumption for the next few decades at least, radically accelerating the demand for hydrocarbons. India expects a quintupling of coal use in the next 4 decades. Airline miles will quintuple in much shorter period of time (like ten-twenty years). There is no shortage of hydrocarbons to naturally limit these demands. Politically there is no way to restrain newly developing nations. Technologically there is no net-positive energy generation source that competes on a density basis with fossil fuels. Again, the numbers tell the story. I sincerely appreciate your frustration and hope for something different/better, but you need to come up with contrary data to argue these points. A hope in technical improvements year-over-year is all you've pointed to, and the trendline of capacity and efficiency improvements doesn't back that up. Further cost paid for a solar panel is not a benchmark. Energy intensity of its emplacement to bring it online is what its output needs to be balanced against. Its output, limited by useful life and useful operating hours really hamstrings its total lifecycle cost after the fossil fuel intense journey it takes.
- pfdietz 6y ago
- m4rtink 6y agoThey will eventually - at the moment Sun is radiating the was majority of it's energy into basically empty space. There is no reason not to put all that energy to good use by a Dyson swarm.
- iso1631 6y agoNew nuclear (Hinkley C) in the uk costs £92.50/MWh -- 3200MWe, operational from 2025 Proposed new offshore wind farms cost £40/MWh, operational from 2023/2024 Nuclear was the answer 15 years ago. It's not now.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoNuclear is still the answer to "what about baseline demand". Battery storage is possibly going to fit in there, but it doesn't do it yet. Tidal, ground source, gravity/momentum/compression/latent-heat storage solutions, some of these might do. I think we need at least one more cycle of Nuclear power plants. Perhaps then we'll have workable fission.
- iso1631 6y agoPossibly, but it seems exceptionally expensive and slow for what you get. Sods law will say if you don't invest in nuclear, you'll be using a lot more CCGT because storage or large-geography interconnects won't be there But if you do invest, you'll end up being stuck with something costing far more than commodity renewables+storage We have "workable fission" now, it's just very expensive. Workable fusion is always a generation away.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoSorry, yes, obvious typo fission -> fusion. It does feel like Tokamak will never arrive. An acquaintance did their doctorate last year on modelling some aspect of the containment; they didn't seem hopeful.
- pfdietz 6y agoNuclear might have been an answer ten years ago, but one cannot make the case today that it is the answer. The raw economics have pushed nuclear out of the picture now.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoGo on, so what do you propose for baseline power - more gas fired power stations?
- mellavora 6y agototally mis-read this as "we can use nuclear weapons to lower carbon emissions"... teach me to scan instead of read!