7 ms·
Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been us
by manfredo 6y ago
Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been using fusion power since the 1980s.
If you prefer a global approach as opposed to a US-centric approach, then consider the fact that the world consumes 60 TWh of electricity per day, or 2.4 TWh per hour. By comparison the entire world only produces 300 GWh, or 0.3 TWh of lithium ion batteries. And only a small fraction of that is used for grid storage [1]. These plans for intermittent sources as a primary source of energy are contingent on vast - 3 or 4 orders of magnitude at least - increases in the production of storage capacity. This isn't something that can be relied upon. This is like pointing to Moore's law and developing an application assuming a 4 THz CPU is going to be around 10 years from now.
Lastly, I can't help but appreciate the irony of complaining about a US-centric approach and cherry-picking Australia - a country with lots of undeveloped land and huge solar power potential - as an example. Like I said in my previous comment, the bulk of global energy consumption occurs in North America, Europe, and Northern Asia (China, Japan, Korea). These places have much lower solar potential between greater inclinations of the Earth and less amenable weather. And even with it's natural advantages, Australia still only generates 7% of its electricity from wind and solar each.
By comparison, the US already generates 20% of its electricity from nuclear and several countries like France, Ukraine, and Belgium are majority nuclear generation. Nuclear is by far the best proven way of delivering carbon free energy, save for hydroelectric power but the latter is geographically dependent. It's more expensive than fossil fuels, nobody denies that, but it's actually doable with current technology. Its feasibility is not contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in key technologies. Using nuclear for the bulk of energy generation has been done by multiple countries, we merely need to walk in their footsteps.
1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:text=As%20of%20Dec%202019%2C%20the,40%20million%20EVs%20by%202028 https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:t....
- toomuchtodo 6y agoYou are of course free to your opinion, but the economics and cost decline curves of renewables and storage are clear [1]. The entire world is transitioning to electrified transportation, and is going to scale up energy storage (battery manufacturing) accordingly [2], faster than any commercial nuclear operation will be built. Can you build a nuclear reactor in less than a decade cheaper then storage and renewables? The evidence indicates no. But if you can, the world would love that, just demonstrate it's possible. Until then, it's hydro, batteries, renewables, and demand response full speed ahead. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard LCOE 2020, pages 3 and 11 are most relevant to our subthread discussion) [2] https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production ("As of Dec 2019, the number of lithium ion battery megafactories in the pipeline has reached 115 plants. The world’s leading EV and battery manufacturer added a huge 564GWh of pipeline capacity in 2019 to a global total of 2068.3GWh or the equivalent of 40 million EVs by 2028.")
- manfredo 6y agoLevelized cost of energy in your link excludes the cost of storage. For the third time, nobody is arguing that raw renewable generation isn't cheap. The issue is that translating raw renewable generation into usable, dispatchable power is very, very expensive. Yes, we absolutely can build nuclear in much much shorter time than renewables plus storage. I don't think you fully comprehend the staggering mismatch between the scale of storage required and storage produced. We cited the same source on battery production. Take a closer look at the graph: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bloombergbatteries2030.jpg https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/blo... The small magenta segment that says "stationary storage" is the portion of battery production actually going to renewable storage. Even by 2030, it's still being added at a rate of less than 200 GWh per year. The world uses 2,400 GWh of electricity per hour. That's more than the entire height of this graph. It'll take well beyond 2035 to even provide just one hour of grid storage with batteries. By comparison, France increased it's share of nuclear generation from under 15% to over 80% in 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoLazard has levelized cost of storage analysis too: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- manfredo 6y agoAnd the levelized cost of PV + storage as per that link is $250 to $600 per MWh. By comparison the cost of nuclear in that study is $130 to $200 per MWh. Thank your for providing this source explaining how the cost of storage renewables at a higher net cost than nuclear.
- brohee 6y agoThe learning curves of both renewables and storage are such than the advantage won't last long...
- aidenn0 6y ago> Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been using fusion power since the 1980s. Of course the same holds true for MSRs. Regulatory hurdles mean any widespread deployment of nuclear is minimum 10 years away as well (the video shows the timeline for this reactor as 100MW in 2028, but I think that's optimistic, and it's just for the very first reactor. I think we should pursue many avenues of reducing fossil-fuel reliance, primarily because I think its premature to say what solution(s) will win out.
- manfredo 6y agoCorrect, we shouldn't use modular small reactors (or molten salt reactors for that matter). We should use the pressurized water reactors we actually know how to build. France generates over 70% of its electricity from them, and the US already generates 20% from PWRs. For every existing PWR we need to build 4, and that's enough to fulfill 100% of our electricity demand. Larger reactors are actually more efficient, too. The price per watt is 2-2.5x that of fossil fuels but they remain the only way to produce carbon-free energy around the clock besides geographically dependent solutions like geothermal and hydroelectric power. MSRs may be useful eventually for remote power generation, but as far as bulk power generation the decades of experience building and operating PWRs is too compelling an advantage.
- brohee 6y agoBelgium is closing its nuclear, and its carbon intensity gonna shoot through the roof...