9 ms·
I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a hi
by elihu 5y ago
I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built.
Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corruption or corner-cutting?
If nuclear can be made to handle more of our energy needs for a reasonable cost, then that's a good thing, and if it can be made cheaper by updating regulations without sacrificing safety, then I think that would be awesome. But I think we should plan for the future under the assumption that most of our energy will come from renewables. That's the lowest-risk plan that doesn't require major regulatory changes or new technology. (Apparently there are also some major lithium iron phosphate patents that are expired or expiring soon, which should open up cheap battery manufacturing to companies outside of China.)
- ekianjo 5y ago> d be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper Cost is not just a single factor. Energy density is very important too. Solar farms take huge amounts of space to produce very little energy compared to a nuclear plant.
- elihu 5y agoSolar farms can be pretty big, but we have the space for it. If you look at a map of the United States, there's a lot of land in the Southwest that gets a lot of sunlight and isn't usable for growing crops. It's an ecosystem, and anything that intrudes on that ecosystem will be somewhat disruptive, but as long as reasonable care is taken I don't see it as a problem to use a smallish fraction of that land for solar production.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoNot all of the United States is in the southwest, and why should the southwest destroy all their natural environments to power the rest of the rest of the country over lossy power lines when local nuclear could do it?
- elihu 5y agoDecent high-voltage DC lines can move that power around with pretty small losses. (Wikipedia quotes about 3.5% per 1000km.) And the Southwest doesn't have to destroy all their natural environments; they just happen to have a natural advantage in power generation on land that otherwise isn't economically productive. (Not that all land has to be economically productive.) This could be a major industry in those states. Ecological impact should be looked into and installations should be done in a way that creates minimal environmental impact, but I'm not going to say that it should be an absolute showstopper if sagebrush is interspersed by the occasional array of black panels. The environmental costs of major solar farms aren't going to be zero, but just because it's non-zero doesn't mean we shouldn't do it if it's environmentally preferable to burning coal and natural gas. I'm also not against nuclear, I'm just not optimistic we can get the costs down.
- tlb 5y agoWhile the losses aren't too big, transmission lines are very expensive and take many years of planning to get the land rights required if there isn't already a transmission line going there. There aren't currently a lot of lines going to the middle of nowhere, except for some hydroelectric dams.
- hedora 5y agoAlso, solar apparently pollutes a heck of a lot more than nuclear. It’s still > 100x better than fossil fuels, and I’m still putting some on my roof, but the figures in the article are surprising.
- natmaka 5y agoNope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
- erentz 5y agoThe thrust was correct according to your source, or am I misreading it? Nuclear median 12, Solar 48 (4x nuclear), gas 490 (10x solar), coal 810 (20x solar).
- natmaka 5y agoYes, it was, however this dates back 2014 and solar recycling is progressing, and becomes more and more legally mandatory in industrialized nations. Solar panels: operators now reach ~80% recycling (glass, metal, silicon, plastic). Wind turbines recycling is also quickly progressing.
- acidburnNSA 5y agoNuclear waste recycling is also progressing.
- natmaka 5y agoMany old industrial setups are now closed, and there are not many new projects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
- xcskier56 5y ago
- mrjangles 5y agoA solar farm that produces the same power as a nuclear power station (1GW) requires 1000 3MW turbines (33% efficiency) at 700 meters apart. That's 500 square kilometers of turbines (something like 200 square miles). I once did the calculation and it came out to something like 10 times as much concrete and steel to build the turbines as it would have taken to build the nuclear power plant.
- yellowapple 5y agoDid you mean wind instead of solar? Or panels instead of turbines?
- mrjangles 5y agoyes, I mean wind, thank you.
- Gwypaas 5y ago60-64% capacity factor, 14MW. https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind...
- pvaldes 5y ago> 10 times as much concrete and steel to build the turbines as to build the nuclear power plant But all those materials are 100% recyclable as raw matters the next week after the wind turbines close. With nuclear, you can't touch those iron an concrete in generations. And we need to include in our calculus the two concrete sarcophagous that were required in Chernobyl also. We will be pouring tons of concrete for a lot of time in that place.
- pvaldes 5y agoSolar farms don't need to be near water courses or water masses. They can be put in arid places blown by the wind where people typically don't like to live. Deserts are wide and empty Nuclear requires water. Humans societies need water also. So nuclear normally competes for the same areas that humans inhabit. All big cities were built near water sources.
- stevespang 5y agoWind/solar plus batteries are FAR cheaper - - and inherently less dangerous from accidents / tsunamis / terrorists. Those who espouse nuclear want us all to forget three mile island, Fujiyama, Chernobyl, and the numerous future accidents to come. Nuclear also contributes massive thermal emissions to the planet, not in greenhouse gases but in direct, once off thermal.
- yCombLinks 5y agoThe problem is nuclear has been the affordable solution for decades and hasn't been built, due to politics.
- bobthepanda 5y agoAffordable by looking at any other measure than the balance sheet, maybe. Nuclear plants that are on time and on budget are exceptions, not the rule.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoAffordable by looking at the decimation of the plantet. It comes at a fraction of the cost (destruction of human civilization and 80% plus of the world's animal population)
- mrjangles 5y agoI read an excellent article written in Physics Today by a nuclear physicist once. For the life of me I have never been able to find it again. But he describes this in detail. Basically, in his description this is entirely due to the environmental movement. Any time a nuclear plant gets planned the green groups move in a mountain of lawyers and lock down the process for years and years. The costs this adds to the projects are staggering and it is solely because of this that nuclear power can't be built in the US. In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time.
- mrjangles 5y agoSolar, wind plus batteries (and other intermittent sources) are only cheaper because it is subsidized by the base power stations. Only about 20% of the cost of coal and 5% of nuclear comes from the fuel. Almost all costs are fixed costs. They need to be paid regardless of whether people use the power or not. But in the current system, those who use solar or wind and only use base power occasionally aren't paying those costs. Instead everyone else has to cover those costs, which is why the price of electricity skyrockets wherever there are more 'renewable' (or specifically, 'intermittent') sources. This is why electricity costs 10c per kwh in many parts of the US, but 40c per kwh in European countries with lots of windmills. basically it is a huge market distortion. The real cost of base power is a fixed yearly fee to get access, then 2c per kwh after that (i.e the 20% fuel cost). If this is what was charged no one would use wind or solar at all. (or you would have people using solar but disconnected from the grid, which would be great too).
- cinntaile 5y agoWhat costs aren't being paid for exactly?
- acidburnNSA 5y agoThe ones that ensure with several 9's that the lights come on 24/7 regardless of time of day or weather. LCOE covers the generator alone, but not transmission lines, idled gas plants, energy storage, smart load balancing, etc. You can keep big gas plants around in a high intermittent grid and fire them up 10% of the time. The way we view LCOE right now, those plants would be insanely expensive while wind/solar would be super cheap. But we would still pay for the backup capacity. This kind of system cost is what matters dramatically more than LCOE.
- cinntaile 5y agoLCOE is just an investment tool to figure out where you get the most bang for your buck as an investor. It does not tell us what the best option is for the energy system as a whole.