4 ms·

You are skipping a crucial variable: Capacitance Factor. New nuclear power plants come in at 90-95%+, while lower for both solar (10-25%) and wind (22% for ons

You are skipping a crucial variable: Capacitance Factor. New nuclear power plants come in at 90-95%+, while lower for both solar (10-25%) and wind (22% for onshore and 36% for offshore in 2018). This means that 1GW of nuclear power will, on average, result in 0,9-0,95GW of grid capacity, while 1GW of offshore wind will result in 1/3rd of that. So if we use your example with Hornsea 2 (I haven't checked your data, but choose to believe you), Hornsea 2 is 50% more expensive than nuclear power, with out factoring in the cost of large scale energy storage. Ask any honest person in the battery industry – I have done that, because I wanted to know whether or not it was an option – and she will clearly tell you, that they will not even be able to meet the anywhere close to 10% of EU or US storage needs in 2050, while also supplying batteries to EVs and other needs. Those windmills have an operating life of 15-20 years. Once again, we need to triple or quadruple the cost, to keep that capacity on the grid for an equal amount of time. The same goes for whichever storage solution you choose – batteries for example. Newer battery technology might change that, but that is a very schizophrenic approach that I see in far too many people, who put their politics first: The environmental challenges are enormous, present and must be solved fast... just not with that specific type of technology, but rather one that we haven't invented yet. I find this close to disqualifying. Safe modern reactors are built; look at the South Korean project in UAE. SMR's are a relative new field, they have already come very far, which is surprising for many, since government support of this research is close to none, compared to money spent on other green energy projects (even the foolish ones, such as wave energy). Nuclear is stable and delivers energy 24/7. When the requirement is for stable energy with a high total EROEI, nuclear is a great technology. If one thinks of the environmental situation as a crisis, one should want to act now. Nuclear can be rolled out now and a wide rollout would make the industry do all those things, you think it is lacking. Because not enough is being done now and if it was a purely economic discussion (including proper safety, storage of spent fuel until it can be used, etc. – not cutting corners!), nuclear would already be the major power source in he world. But feelings go above facts, which is hurting science, humanity and the planet.

jerven 6y ago
Capacity factor is bounded by limited demand. You can't put power on the grid that no one wants. So for an all nuclear grid you end up with a capacity factor that is around 60-70%. (note: France exports/imports a lot so capacity factor is higher than if it was an isolated grid). For wind, if there is storage capacity factor goes up. Basically, if it can produce and there is a consumer (the battery) then the wind mill will turn. If there is no consumer it shut's off even if there is wind. Windmills have a guarantee for 20 years (in common contracts, sometimes 25). Included in the above prices. Nuclear island lasts 60 years, but will be refurbished and it's power island is not guaranteed for 60 years (turbines). Solar panels guarantees are heading towards the 40 year mark (inverters not yet). The law of large numbers favor's wind and solar for reliability at scale. It's not about feelings, it's about hard economic reality. That even with massive economic subsidies very few modern nuclear plants are viable. With the problem, that the scale up period of Nuclear is too slow. Even successes take decades to build. And are limited by sites/foundery's that themselves takes years to build.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  History demonstrates otherwise. Not one country generates the majoirty of their power from solar or wind. By comparison, France and Belgium generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power. Similarly the claim that nuclear is too slow to build is false. France constructed the majority of their reactor fleet over the course of 15 years. Solar and wind are only viable with storage. Hydroelectric storage is currently the most popular, but it's geographically limited. Batteries don't provide anywhere near the scale of storage requires. The US would need 12 hours of storage to reach 80% renewable generation and 3 weeks of storage to reach 100% renewable generation [1]. The US consumes 11.5 TWh of electricity daily. But global lithium ion battery production is only 300 GWh per year [2]. Even if we contributed 100% of global battery production to grid storage in the US, it would take 800 years to fulfill 3 weeks of storage. Sure, battery production is set to increase to 2,000 GWh per year some time in 2030, but that only brings this time down to 120 years. And remember, this is just the storage demands for the United States. If we're worried about the time it takes to decarbonize, then solar and wind are very poor choices. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... 2. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
  - choeger 6y ago
    You are really jumping through the scales there. But using your numbers, right now it would take about 15 years of battery production to provide the storage for that 80% target. That is, empirically, the same order of time it takes to commission a new nuclear power plant. Add to that the fact that this battery production capacity itself is comparatively young (less then a decade, mostly) and very much scalable and you come to the conclusion that, right now, it is more efficient to achieve that 80% target by batteries vs. nuclear power. If the US signals to the world market that there is a demand of about 1TWh of storage per year, the production capacity will explode.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago

jerven 6y ago

Capacity factor is bounded by limited demand. You can't put power on the grid that no one wants. So for an all nuclear grid you end up with a capacity factor that is around 60-70%. (note: France exports/imports a lot so capacity factor is higher than if it was an isolated grid). For wind, if there is storage capacity factor goes up. Basically, if it can produce and there is a consumer (the battery) then the wind mill will turn. If there is no consumer it shut's off even if there is wind. Windmills have a guarantee for 20 years (in common contracts, sometimes 25). Included in the above prices. Nuclear island lasts 60 years, but will be refurbished and it's power island is not guaranteed for 60 years (turbines). Solar panels guarantees are heading towards the 40 year mark (inverters not yet). The law of large numbers favor's wind and solar for reliability at scale. It's not about feelings, it's about hard economic reality. That even with massive economic subsidies very few modern nuclear plants are viable. With the problem, that the scale up period of Nuclear is too slow. Even successes take decades to build. And are limited by sites/foundery's that themselves takes years to build.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
History demonstrates otherwise. Not one country generates the majoirty of their power from solar or wind. By comparison, France and Belgium generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power. Similarly the claim that nuclear is too slow to build is false. France constructed the majority of their reactor fleet over the course of 15 years. Solar and wind are only viable with storage. Hydroelectric storage is currently the most popular, but it's geographically limited. Batteries don't provide anywhere near the scale of storage requires. The US would need 12 hours of storage to reach 80% renewable generation and 3 weeks of storage to reach 100% renewable generation [1]. The US consumes 11.5 TWh of electricity daily. But global lithium ion battery production is only 300 GWh per year [2]. Even if we contributed 100% of global battery production to grid storage in the US, it would take 800 years to fulfill 3 weeks of storage. Sure, battery production is set to increase to 2,000 GWh per year some time in 2030, but that only brings this time down to 120 years. And remember, this is just the storage demands for the United States. If we're worried about the time it takes to decarbonize, then solar and wind are very poor choices. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... 2. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
- choeger 6y ago
  You are really jumping through the scales there. But using your numbers, right now it would take about 15 years of battery production to provide the storage for that 80% target. That is, empirically, the same order of time it takes to commission a new nuclear power plant. Add to that the fact that this battery production capacity itself is comparatively young (less then a decade, mostly) and very much scalable and you come to the conclusion that, right now, it is more efficient to achieve that 80% target by batteries vs. nuclear power. If the US signals to the world market that there is a demand of about 1TWh of storage per year, the production capacity will explode.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago