4 ms·

Wind and solar need backup power plants and therefore CANNOT replace nuclear power plants.

Wind and solar need backup power plants and therefore *CANNOT* replace nuclear power plants.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Well, they can, but it’s a lot harder than people realize. To replace 1GW of nuclear completely in Virginia without a bunch of transmission, you may need about 14GW nameplate solar and about 50GWh of storage. It’s not cheap. Source: here, with 0 as exponent, 2011 as the year, 2020 cost scenario, and only solar and battery storage. https://model.energy https://model.energy
- pfdietz 6y ago
  I assume that was with just batteries for storage, not batteries and hydrogen. Adding hydrogen often greatly reduces the overcapacity needed in those model solutions.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    As you can see in that model, you're correct. But I generally find the assumptions in those solutions to be optimistic. Large scale hydrogen storage using salt domes is not as mature of a technology as we would like. Solar and battery are solutions mostly independent of geography (although latitude and weather play a role in solar, of course). Purely replacing nuclear without relying on any backup or geographic trickery can be simulated by just using solar and battery. But it's also useful as a way of understanding these systems. It's often insisted that you CANNOT replace baseload power with solar and battery, and yet you, in fact, can. Adding other energy (including nuclear) and storage sources as well as long-distance transmission help tremendously, in this case by about a factor of 2-3x or so in cost. If you can't tell, I'm bothered almost exactly equally by those arguing against nuclear as I am by those who argue against solar and wind. Both "sides" are wrong because either options would suffice and are safe. But it's much cheaper to just do both, or expressed in another way, allow us to emit the least amount of carbon emissions possible without freezing anyone to death or causing pipes to burst or dealing out energy poverty.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Nuclear on a scale needed to replace fossil fuels is also a technology that is not mature. In particular, it would require such an expansion that a full breeding cycle would soon be necessary. The deepest flaw of nuclear is that it has failed to show good experience effects. This alone marks it as a doomed technology, when it is facing competition with strong experience effects. Unless this changes, things will only get worse for nuclear, not better.

Wind and solar need backup power plants and therefore *CANNOT* replace nuclear power plants.

Well, they can, but it’s a lot harder than people realize. To replace 1GW of nuclear completely in Virginia without a bunch of transmission, you may need about 14GW nameplate solar and about 50GWh of storage. It’s not cheap. Source: here, with 0 as exponent, 2011 as the year, 2020 cost scenario, and only solar and battery storage. https://model.energy https://model.energy

pfdietz 6y ago
I assume that was with just batteries for storage, not batteries and hydrogen. Adding hydrogen often greatly reduces the overcapacity needed in those model solutions.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  As you can see in that model, you're correct. But I generally find the assumptions in those solutions to be optimistic. Large scale hydrogen storage using salt domes is not as mature of a technology as we would like. Solar and battery are solutions mostly independent of geography (although latitude and weather play a role in solar, of course). Purely replacing nuclear without relying on any backup or geographic trickery can be simulated by just using solar and battery. But it's also useful as a way of understanding these systems. It's often insisted that you CANNOT replace baseload power with solar and battery, and yet you, in fact, can. Adding other energy (including nuclear) and storage sources as well as long-distance transmission help tremendously, in this case by about a factor of 2-3x or so in cost. If you can't tell, I'm bothered almost exactly equally by those arguing against nuclear as I am by those who argue against solar and wind. Both "sides" are wrong because either options would suffice and are safe. But it's much cheaper to just do both, or expressed in another way, allow us to emit the least amount of carbon emissions possible without freezing anyone to death or causing pipes to burst or dealing out energy poverty.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Nuclear on a scale needed to replace fossil fuels is also a technology that is not mature. In particular, it would require such an expansion that a full breeding cycle would soon be necessary. The deepest flaw of nuclear is that it has failed to show good experience effects. This alone marks it as a doomed technology, when it is facing competition with strong experience effects. Unless this changes, things will only get worse for nuclear, not better.