3 ms·

At the current rate, it will take us at least a century to replace fossil fuels with battery and renewables. Nuclear makes sense in the short term until we can

by foxyv 5y ago

At the current rate, it will take us at least a century to replace fossil fuels with battery and renewables. Nuclear makes sense in the short term until we can replace it with renewables. If we continue as we are, replacing nuclear with natural gas instead of the other way around, we will never make climate targets in time to stop catastrophic levels of CO2 emission. This is despite gains in solar and wind generation. Battery, solar, and wind make sense in the long run. However we are running out of time. We want to limit change to 1.5 celsius and we will never make those targets at the current rate. We are reaching limits of solar and wind alone in a lot of countries and storage solutions aren't being created nearly fast enough. In addition, if we are going to start capturing carbon from unavoidable emissions like concrete production we will need to increase our energy usage dramatically. Essentially, we are VERY underwater and we need something to help us stop sinking to give us time to swim our way out. Nuclear is already playing a big part in that, but not nearly enough. As it is, we could have a chernobyl every year and still not see the level of devastation that is expected to occur with climate change.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
We are not reaching the limits of solar and wind in any country, this is just not true. And even if it was, you have not given a single reason as to why building new nuclear would help in that scenario. Talk me through it please.
- foxyv 5y ago
  At a certain point, base load has to be met during low wind nights. Renewable energy is cheap and efficient. However it doesn't meet base load requirements without substantial storage. Nuclear does meet those requirements. Currently we are using natural gas. Even if you had 10x the necessary capacity of solar, you would still need some sort of night time storage which currently doesn't exist. In addition you need something to offset power losses and increased demand in higher latitudes during the winter.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. We need to ditch the gas and coal. I'm happy to keep the nuclear as long as someone can explain how it actually helps achieve a carbon free grid. But apparently no one can.
    - foxyv 5y ago
      There are two sides to explaining something. A providing of information and comprehension. If someone is unwilling or unable to comprehend something then no one can explain to them how something works. In that way, no, I cannot explain this to you.
    - forgotpassword1 5y ago
      > Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. Most people will always use electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Offices are still open, air conditioner / heater are still running, and factories are still operating. This is the "baseload" they are talking about, and no it is not fictional. Wind and solar fluctuates between 0 and MAX_OUTPUT. Power usage also fluctuates, but between BASELOAD and MAX_CONSUMPTION. These two are not in sync, and even if they are, you still need other power sources to handle the BASELOAD part of it. Nuclear is able to generate a stable output power. If we have enough nuclear power plants to generate BASELOAD amount of power, we only need renewables to handle the remaining MAX_CONSUMPTION-BASELOAD, and we will need much less battery to handle the fluctuation.
      - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
        See my other comment about graphing the overlap between "baseload" and solar. What are you pairing this nuclear baseload with? Gas? At least make an effort. What about, we build enough nuclear to cover more than the yearly total energy demand, and run them all the time. Then when demand is low, like at night we use the energy to generate green hydrogen (apparently also called pink hydrogen if you use nuclear specifically). We then use that hydrogen in converted gas turbines to meet peak needs above baseline and we sell the rest to farmers to make fertilizer and manufacturers as a feedstock and fuel. How possible is this? Very possible. Now, replace the nukes with a similar output of solar and wind. And locate some of it in the sunniest regions of the world and ship the hydrogen to customer by boat or pipeline. Is it much cheaper. Yes it is. So why do we need nuclear?
Daishiman 5y ago
> At the current rate, it will take us at least a century to replace fossil fuels with battery and renewables. N While I am as much of a pessimist as you are, you also need to recognize that the growth in solar, wind, and storage capacities is _exponential_, with the exponent being _dramatically_ higher than even the most optimistic of expectations.
- foxyv 5y ago
  Keep in mind, using current technology, we would need to mine 3-5x our yearly output JUST for grid energy. This doesn't include cell phones, laptops, electric bikes, and Teslas. Even then it would be the bare minimum just required to replace baseline natural gas and coal at the current power usage. Not including replacing peaker plants for winter and heat waves. Sure, we are increasing battery production pretty fast. However mined lithium has gone down in the last few years while demand has soared for non-grid batteries. We need either a new storage technology, a vast increase in mined lithium, or a base load generator which can compete with natural gas like lithium does. So far we have 0.1% of the grid scale batteries we need. It took 6 years to go from 6 gigawatts to 28 gigawatts. (At a power to storage scale of 0.5 you can roughly convert to energy storage by doubling the power) Even at an exponential rate it's still going to take decades. Eventually we will hit the top of the logistic curve when we find a limiting factor to production. Current estimates are 52 gigawatts by 2025. Roughly a doubling rate of 4-5 years. Assuming a 5 year doubling rate with no logistical limitation, an exponential expansion would reach necessary capacity in 44 years. Which would be awesome, if we can manage it. However, in 44 years, power demand will have increased as well. Currently we are not building enough renewables to even touch the increase much less batteries. Year - Power - Percent of 10tw 2025 - 52 gw - 0.5% 2030 - 100 gw - 1.0% 2035 - 200 gw - 2% 2040 - 400 gw - 4% 2045 - 800 gw - 8% 2050 - 1600 gw - 16% 2055 - 3200 gw - 32% 2060 - 6400 gw - 64% 2065 - 12800 gw - 128%
  - labawi 5y ago
    Did you just switch from solar / wind, which is totally workable and cheapest form of energy, to arguing about batteries? Batteries for storage are problematic, especially grid scale lithium - globally unfeasible regardless of nuclear. We need to move a lot of consumption onto electric (or direct solar) so we will need to manage the time and location aspects of consumption - easier with nuclear (if you get it built) but not a deal-breaker as argued elsewhere. Technology already exists - least sophisticated one is called a switch. Solar by itself is already rated at 3.7% of world electricity consumption, so your table is .. grid batteries? Yes, unworkable and besides the point. y GW cap % of 30TW 2020 700 2.3 2025 2200 7.3 2030 7000 23 2035 21000 71 2040 65000 210 If we keep the pace of x1.25 year-to-year increase, PV solar achieves global domination by 2040 and Li-ion is considered an archaic technology (at least for grid scale load shifting).

by foxyv 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

We are not reaching the limits of solar and wind in any country, this is just not true. And even if it was, you have not given a single reason as to why building new nuclear would help in that scenario. Talk me through it please.

foxyv 5y ago
At a certain point, base load has to be met during low wind nights. Renewable energy is cheap and efficient. However it doesn't meet base load requirements without substantial storage. Nuclear does meet those requirements. Currently we are using natural gas. Even if you had 10x the necessary capacity of solar, you would still need some sort of night time storage which currently doesn't exist. In addition you need something to offset power losses and increased demand in higher latitudes during the winter.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. We need to ditch the gas and coal. I'm happy to keep the nuclear as long as someone can explain how it actually helps achieve a carbon free grid. But apparently no one can.
  - foxyv 5y ago
    There are two sides to explaining something. A providing of information and comprehension. If someone is unwilling or unable to comprehend something then no one can explain to them how something works. In that way, no, I cannot explain this to you.
  - forgotpassword1 5y ago
    > Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. Most people will always use electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Offices are still open, air conditioner / heater are still running, and factories are still operating. This is the "baseload" they are talking about, and no it is not fictional. Wind and solar fluctuates between 0 and MAX_OUTPUT. Power usage also fluctuates, but between BASELOAD and MAX_CONSUMPTION. These two are not in sync, and even if they are, you still need other power sources to handle the BASELOAD part of it. Nuclear is able to generate a stable output power. If we have enough nuclear power plants to generate BASELOAD amount of power, we only need renewables to handle the remaining MAX_CONSUMPTION-BASELOAD, and we will need much less battery to handle the fluctuation.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      See my other comment about graphing the overlap between "baseload" and solar. What are you pairing this nuclear baseload with? Gas? At least make an effort. What about, we build enough nuclear to cover more than the yearly total energy demand, and run them all the time. Then when demand is low, like at night we use the energy to generate green hydrogen (apparently also called pink hydrogen if you use nuclear specifically). We then use that hydrogen in converted gas turbines to meet peak needs above baseline and we sell the rest to farmers to make fertilizer and manufacturers as a feedstock and fuel. How possible is this? Very possible. Now, replace the nukes with a similar output of solar and wind. And locate some of it in the sunniest regions of the world and ship the hydrogen to customer by boat or pipeline. Is it much cheaper. Yes it is. So why do we need nuclear?

Daishiman 5y ago

> At the current rate, it will take us at least a century to replace fossil fuels with battery and renewables. N While I am as much of a pessimist as you are, you also need to recognize that the growth in solar, wind, and storage capacities is _exponential_, with the exponent being _dramatically_ higher than even the most optimistic of expectations.

foxyv 5y ago
Keep in mind, using current technology, we would need to mine 3-5x our yearly output JUST for grid energy. This doesn't include cell phones, laptops, electric bikes, and Teslas. Even then it would be the bare minimum just required to replace baseline natural gas and coal at the current power usage. Not including replacing peaker plants for winter and heat waves. Sure, we are increasing battery production pretty fast. However mined lithium has gone down in the last few years while demand has soared for non-grid batteries. We need either a new storage technology, a vast increase in mined lithium, or a base load generator which can compete with natural gas like lithium does. So far we have 0.1% of the grid scale batteries we need. It took 6 years to go from 6 gigawatts to 28 gigawatts. (At a power to storage scale of 0.5 you can roughly convert to energy storage by doubling the power) Even at an exponential rate it's still going to take decades. Eventually we will hit the top of the logistic curve when we find a limiting factor to production. Current estimates are 52 gigawatts by 2025. Roughly a doubling rate of 4-5 years. Assuming a 5 year doubling rate with no logistical limitation, an exponential expansion would reach necessary capacity in 44 years. Which would be awesome, if we can manage it. However, in 44 years, power demand will have increased as well. Currently we are not building enough renewables to even touch the increase much less batteries. Year - Power - Percent of 10tw 2025 - 52 gw - 0.5% 2030 - 100 gw - 1.0% 2035 - 200 gw - 2% 2040 - 400 gw - 4% 2045 - 800 gw - 8% 2050 - 1600 gw - 16% 2055 - 3200 gw - 32% 2060 - 6400 gw - 64% 2065 - 12800 gw - 128%
- labawi 5y ago
  Did you just switch from solar / wind, which is totally workable and cheapest form of energy, to arguing about batteries? Batteries for storage are problematic, especially grid scale lithium - globally unfeasible regardless of nuclear. We need to move a lot of consumption onto electric (or direct solar) so we will need to manage the time and location aspects of consumption - easier with nuclear (if you get it built) but not a deal-breaker as argued elsewhere. Technology already exists - least sophisticated one is called a switch. Solar by itself is already rated at 3.7% of world electricity consumption, so your table is .. grid batteries? Yes, unworkable and besides the point. y GW cap % of 30TW 2020 700 2.3 2025 2200 7.3 2030 7000 23 2035 21000 71 2040 65000 210 If we keep the pace of x1.25 year-to-year increase, PV solar achieves global domination by 2040 and Li-ion is considered an archaic technology (at least for grid scale load shifting).