4 ms·

Have a look at http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ (I was David's Editor for "Sustainable Energy - without the

Have a look at http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ (I was David's Editor for "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air". There's been quite a bit of interest in updating the book, but there are obvious difficulties. If have suggestions, let me know. Niall Mansfield sewtha-2.0@uit.co.uk )

lucb1e 5y ago
I wonder if this is correct. Setting the nuclear slider to max single-handedly reduces emissions by 30%, decreases energy costs rather than increases, does not require land use change, improves air quality, and also reduces electricity demand by using the waste heat for district heating. Now add: (1.) electrification of freight transport, (2.) tackling the (relatively) quick wins in industry electrification, and (3.) carbon capture, and one gets to 75% emissions reduction with less than one percent of cost increase and zero behavioural changes (such as eating less meat or flying less often) are required. I can't find any other combination in this calculator that leaves nature so untouched, requires so little land use, requires no behaviour adjustment, or is so cheap while still reducing emissions meaningfully. (Well, geothermal is nearly as good but then its maximum potential is only a small percentage of energy demand and it's also a bit more expensive per Joule.) Probably the most unrealistic part is public support for the choice, but in a perfect world? Would it be this simple?!
- johnny53169 5y ago
  > (3.) carbon capture, and one gets to 75% emissions reduction with less than one percent of cost increase Carbon capture and less than one percent cost increase looks suspect to me
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    Agreed. I didn't use it at first because I thought it would be cheaper to just reduce emissions than undo emissions, at least up until this 80% goal that the site poses. Without any carbon capture, you're still at 61% emissions reduction and the cost actually decreases by 0.8% from today rather than increasing by 0.6%. If you get to 61% with the only change being "build nuclear and make use of it" (no lifestyle changes, no cost changes, no landuse changes), that would be amazing. Hence my main question is about the nuclear aspect. The argument against nuclear is usually that it's super scary and dangerous (easy enough to disprove that with numbers, so long as you're not talking to someone from germany) and the fallback argument is that it's so expensive now that PV+wind became so much cheaper. This calculator seems to show the opposite of that latter argument (when looking purely at price).
    - zbrozek 5y ago
      Surely there are studies of LCOE for both when trying to produce baseload capacity. Personally, I suspect nuclear construction costs are dominant, but that should also be addressible through improvements in technology and policy.
- m4rtink 5y ago
  Not a big surprise given the insanely high power density of nuclear reactors.
- addicted 5y ago
  This is strange considering nuclear continues to be the most expensive new form of fuel and has only been getting more expensive with every passing decade. There is new research in nuclear which if successful would bring costs down but it’s hard to see how maxing out on nuclear reduces average costs. Edit: I see now. The original data is at least over 5 years old, at which point it’s possible that wind/solar may still have been more expensive than nuclear. Editx2: The original book on which the original site is based was published in 2008/2009. It’s not clear how much of the data on this new site has been updated.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  See also, peak uranium : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium 2017 known supply is enough for 130 years at current usage (supplying about 10% of global energy). Each doubling of production halves the peak timeline. Basically no one expects discovery to outpace usage. So, at best, nuclear is a stop gap and part of a different long term solution. Which could be fine! But the extremely low LCOE and fast build time for modern renewables suggests that nuclear is simply losing the race for relevance.
  - korantu 5y ago
    Fuel is very small part in cost of nuclear generation; As fuel price start increasing, more sources become viable, including sea water. There is practically unlimited supply once it happens, and this is before accounting for reprocessing. (and reprocessing happens in France, for example)
    - sdenton4 5y ago
      Right, but the fuel cost goes up over time as extraction gets harder (eventually requiring entire new types of facilities, which themselves take a decade to build), even as wind and solar continue their exponentially decreasing LCOE cost curve. The exponentially decreasing cost curve is the part that I think people haven't actually internalized. The arguments on the pro-nuclear side are pretty much the same as they were ten years ago. (right down to 'we'll have thorium in ten years!') But things are very different now: It's like arguing for large scale investment in punch-card sorting machines circe 1960. Yes, the punch-card sorting machines can be used to manage all your bank data, but the digital processing are getting exponentially better with time and have been actually better for a couple years. But the proponents of punch card sorting machines haven't internalized the message yet.
      - cnlevy 5y ago
        > Right, but the fuel cost goes up over time as extraction gets harder Uranium demand is declining, there has been almost no Uranium prosection in the last decades; Therefore it's no wonder reserves are diminishing. If demand picks up, prospecting will renew, and a lot more uranium will be discovered. This is not accounting for thorium reserves, which have never been seriously prospected.
rufuspollock 5y ago
Thanks Niall - updating the book is exactly what we are hoping to do and still thinking the best form for that. Re that tool i've been in correspondence with one of the other creators re trying to understand the source code etc - see https://github.com/life-itself/climate/issues/2 https://github.com/life-itself/climate/issues/2
tito 5y ago
Rufus, terrific work here! Niall - great to see you here. My mind goes towards helping others with "powers of 10 math" about climate. SWITHA for me embodied this concept of "how to think about the climate" more than anything. That type of thinking is needed more now than ever. Even that line "2 billion years of energy reserves", so powerful.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lucb1e 5y ago

I wonder if this is correct. Setting the nuclear slider to max single-handedly reduces emissions by 30%, decreases energy costs rather than increases, does not require land use change, improves air quality, and also reduces electricity demand by using the waste heat for district heating. Now add: (1.) electrification of freight transport, (2.) tackling the (relatively) quick wins in industry electrification, and (3.) carbon capture, and one gets to 75% emissions reduction with less than one percent of cost increase and zero behavioural changes (such as eating less meat or flying less often) are required. I can't find any other combination in this calculator that leaves nature so untouched, requires so little land use, requires no behaviour adjustment, or is so cheap while still reducing emissions meaningfully. (Well, geothermal is nearly as good but then its maximum potential is only a small percentage of energy demand and it's also a bit more expensive per Joule.) Probably the most unrealistic part is public support for the choice, but in a perfect world? Would it be this simple?!

johnny53169 5y ago
> (3.) carbon capture, and one gets to 75% emissions reduction with less than one percent of cost increase Carbon capture and less than one percent cost increase looks suspect to me
- lucb1e 5y ago
  Agreed. I didn't use it at first because I thought it would be cheaper to just reduce emissions than undo emissions, at least up until this 80% goal that the site poses. Without any carbon capture, you're still at 61% emissions reduction and the cost actually decreases by 0.8% from today rather than increasing by 0.6%. If you get to 61% with the only change being "build nuclear and make use of it" (no lifestyle changes, no cost changes, no landuse changes), that would be amazing. Hence my main question is about the nuclear aspect. The argument against nuclear is usually that it's super scary and dangerous (easy enough to disprove that with numbers, so long as you're not talking to someone from germany) and the fallback argument is that it's so expensive now that PV+wind became so much cheaper. This calculator seems to show the opposite of that latter argument (when looking purely at price).
  - zbrozek 5y ago
    Surely there are studies of LCOE for both when trying to produce baseload capacity. Personally, I suspect nuclear construction costs are dominant, but that should also be addressible through improvements in technology and policy.
m4rtink 5y ago
Not a big surprise given the insanely high power density of nuclear reactors.
addicted 5y ago
This is strange considering nuclear continues to be the most expensive new form of fuel and has only been getting more expensive with every passing decade. There is new research in nuclear which if successful would bring costs down but it’s hard to see how maxing out on nuclear reduces average costs. Edit: I see now. The original data is at least over 5 years old, at which point it’s possible that wind/solar may still have been more expensive than nuclear. Editx2: The original book on which the original site is based was published in 2008/2009. It’s not clear how much of the data on this new site has been updated.
sdenton4 5y ago
See also, peak uranium : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium 2017 known supply is enough for 130 years at current usage (supplying about 10% of global energy). Each doubling of production halves the peak timeline. Basically no one expects discovery to outpace usage. So, at best, nuclear is a stop gap and part of a different long term solution. Which could be fine! But the extremely low LCOE and fast build time for modern renewables suggests that nuclear is simply losing the race for relevance.
- korantu 5y ago
  Fuel is very small part in cost of nuclear generation; As fuel price start increasing, more sources become viable, including sea water. There is practically unlimited supply once it happens, and this is before accounting for reprocessing. (and reprocessing happens in France, for example)
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Right, but the fuel cost goes up over time as extraction gets harder (eventually requiring entire new types of facilities, which themselves take a decade to build), even as wind and solar continue their exponentially decreasing LCOE cost curve. The exponentially decreasing cost curve is the part that I think people haven't actually internalized. The arguments on the pro-nuclear side are pretty much the same as they were ten years ago. (right down to 'we'll have thorium in ten years!') But things are very different now: It's like arguing for large scale investment in punch-card sorting machines circe 1960. Yes, the punch-card sorting machines can be used to manage all your bank data, but the digital processing are getting exponentially better with time and have been actually better for a couple years. But the proponents of punch card sorting machines haven't internalized the message yet.
    - cnlevy 5y ago
      > Right, but the fuel cost goes up over time as extraction gets harder Uranium demand is declining, there has been almost no Uranium prosection in the last decades; Therefore it's no wonder reserves are diminishing. If demand picks up, prospecting will renew, and a lot more uranium will be discovered. This is not accounting for thorium reserves, which have never been seriously prospected.

rufuspollock 5y ago

Thanks Niall - updating the book is exactly what we are hoping to do and still thinking the best form for that. Re that tool i've been in correspondence with one of the other creators re trying to understand the source code etc - see https://github.com/life-itself/climate/issues/2 https://github.com/life-itself/climate/issues/2

tito 5y ago

Rufus, terrific work here! Niall - great to see you here. My mind goes towards helping others with "powers of 10 math" about climate. SWITHA for me embodied this concept of "how to think about the climate" more than anything. That type of thinking is needed more now than ever. Even that line "2 billion years of energy reserves", so powerful.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]