6 ms·

> 75% of all electricity consumption is too low to be a "valid option" for decarbonizing electricity? We have different ideas of what's valid. The US already g

> 75% of all electricity consumption is too low to be a "valid option" for decarbonizing electricity? We have different ideas of what's valid. The US already generates ~40% of its electricity from carbon free sources. An increase to 75% represents only about a 60% reduction in fossil fuels from the current status quo. This is absolutely not a solution. We're still advancing climate change. Halving the time it takes to reach a disaster is not even remotely close to the same thing as averting a disaster. > 37 of them started construction in the 1970s. That's a high project failure rate compared to any other generation source Yes, because of Three Mile Island. Most of the cancellations were for reactors that started in the 1970s, because the US mostly stopped constructing reactors in the 1970s. You don't have cancellations for projects that began in the 1960s because those projects finished before Three Mile Island. You don't have project cancellations in the 1980s and 1990s because the US largely stopped starting new nuclear projects. This pattern of cancellations demonstrates the fact that the high failure rate is due to political pressure, not economic unsuitability of nuclear reactors. Serialized production yields costs per kilowatt hour well below your estimates for renewables even without the cost of storage. And no, if we look at reactors that are no longer in operation we don't see a much higher cost [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Serialized nuclear construction is by far the cheapest and most effective way to eliminate carbon emissions from electricity generation. Intermittent sources are cheap until they reach saturation during their time of production. Then costs skyrocket when storage becomes necessary. And even more importantly, nuclear is the only proven way of accomplishing this. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Point_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Point_Nuclear_Power_P... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_River_Nuclear_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_River_Nuclear_Plant 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewaunee_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewaunee_Power_Station 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generatin...

philipkglass 6y ago
The 75% figure is from solar and wind alone. The balance can come from any combination of nuclear, other renewables, and fossil fuels. It doesn't mean 25% electricity supplied by fossil fuels. You consider France's electricity sector a decarbonization success story, right? It generates "only" 72% of electricity from nuclear power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France The United States also gets 7% of its electricity from hydro and geothermal: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Plus 19.7% from existing American reactors, though that number is going to drift downward as retirements continue to outpace construction. I think that the residual fossil demand would be significantly less than 25%. I can't say how much exactly. That needs another study. In the absence of storage, neither nuclear nor geothermal plants are good at supplying peak demands. Hydro can serve a peaking role to some extent even without building new pumped storage but it's constrained by reservoir volumes, minimum downstream flow rates, seasonal snow melt, etc.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  > In the absence of storage, neither nuclear nor geothermal plants are good at supplying peak demands. This is false. Nuclear and geothermal power can both satisfy peak demand just fine. Nuclear plants do take time to alter the thermal output of the reactor, but they can easily reduce the electric output through overcooling. Same MWt, but lower MWe. Geothermal plants just pump less water into the borehole. Better yet, nuclear plants can direct the excess energy to things like desalination. This is much easier than trying to satisfy peak demand with solar or wind, where peak demand often occurs when the sun isn't visible or when wind speed is substantially higher or lower than demand. Again, France at its peak generated over 85% of it's electricity from nuclear power. I'm not sure where you're getting this myth that nuclear plants can't satisfy variable demand.
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    Nuclear plants can throttle down. But the economics of nuclear power make it prohibitive to satisfy peak demand from nuclear reactors. Even France relies on gas plants and power imports to satisfy its electricity demand peaks, despite being a net electricity exporter over the course of a full year. The CAISO grid had an average power demand of 25 GW in 2019 but a peak demand of 46 GW (Table 1.1): http://www.caiso.com/Documents/2019AnnualReportonMarketIssuesandPerformance.pdf http://www.caiso.com/Documents/2019AnnualReportonMarketIssue... Keeping enough nuclear reactors operating to supply the most demanding hours of the most demanding season would have extraordinarily high marginal costs for the last few terawatt hours.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      This is true not because of any shortcomings of nuclear, but by virtue of the fact that demand is not uniform. The same need to have excess capacity during non peak hours in order to have sufficient capacity during peak hours exists with fossil fuels. If peak demand is 130 GW and trough demand is 100GW you need 130 GW of capacity.
      - philipkglass 6y ago

philipkglass 6y ago

The 75% figure is from solar and wind alone. The balance can come from any combination of nuclear, other renewables, and fossil fuels. It doesn't mean 25% electricity supplied by fossil fuels. You consider France's electricity sector a decarbonization success story, right? It generates "only" 72% of electricity from nuclear power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France The United States also gets 7% of its electricity from hydro and geothermal: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Plus 19.7% from existing American reactors, though that number is going to drift downward as retirements continue to outpace construction. I think that the residual fossil demand would be significantly less than 25%. I can't say how much exactly. That needs another study. In the absence of storage, neither nuclear nor geothermal plants are good at supplying peak demands. Hydro can serve a peaking role to some extent even without building new pumped storage but it's constrained by reservoir volumes, minimum downstream flow rates, seasonal snow melt, etc.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
> In the absence of storage, neither nuclear nor geothermal plants are good at supplying peak demands. This is false. Nuclear and geothermal power can both satisfy peak demand just fine. Nuclear plants do take time to alter the thermal output of the reactor, but they can easily reduce the electric output through overcooling. Same MWt, but lower MWe. Geothermal plants just pump less water into the borehole. Better yet, nuclear plants can direct the excess energy to things like desalination. This is much easier than trying to satisfy peak demand with solar or wind, where peak demand often occurs when the sun isn't visible or when wind speed is substantially higher or lower than demand. Again, France at its peak generated over 85% of it's electricity from nuclear power. I'm not sure where you're getting this myth that nuclear plants can't satisfy variable demand.
- philipkglass 6y ago
  Nuclear plants can throttle down. But the economics of nuclear power make it prohibitive to satisfy peak demand from nuclear reactors. Even France relies on gas plants and power imports to satisfy its electricity demand peaks, despite being a net electricity exporter over the course of a full year. The CAISO grid had an average power demand of 25 GW in 2019 but a peak demand of 46 GW (Table 1.1): http://www.caiso.com/Documents/2019AnnualReportonMarketIssuesandPerformance.pdf http://www.caiso.com/Documents/2019AnnualReportonMarketIssue... Keeping enough nuclear reactors operating to supply the most demanding hours of the most demanding season would have extraordinarily high marginal costs for the last few terawatt hours.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    This is true not because of any shortcomings of nuclear, but by virtue of the fact that demand is not uniform. The same need to have excess capacity during non peak hours in order to have sufficient capacity during peak hours exists with fossil fuels. If peak demand is 130 GW and trough demand is 100GW you need 130 GW of capacity.
    - philipkglass 6y ago