29 ms·

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get th

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. Ironically, with concentrated solar, going lower tech, even at the expense of efficiency, might decrease costs because the materials would amount to cheap mirrors/collectors and steel pipes. Saul Griffith's classic talk highlighted that there's probably no meaningful manufacturing limit to building concentrated solar with existing industrial infrastructure: https://longnow.org/seminars/02009/jan/16/climate-change-recalculated/ https://longnow.org/seminars/02009/jan/16/climate-change-rec...

gameswithgo 5y ago
jupp0r 5y ago
To answer your question: the sun doesn’t shine at night, that’s why we can’t do solar only (without enough energy storage to get us through the night).
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We will build out storage, and transmission lines, to "get us through the night".
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Now do the math on how much storage would be needed, and how much would it cost, then show your work. Investors have done exactly that, which is why large scale storage is not happening yet.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. A renewable dollar is still better spent today on generating capacity, and will be for several more years, most places. Waiting, you get more storage for your money, and you then already have overcapacity to charge it from. Until the share of renewables approaches enough to destabilize the power grid, building out renewable generating capacity displaces more carbon from entering the atmosphere, and so is a better use of capital. At the same time, decreasing load factor of nukes and fossil plants, as they become too expensive to win bids, will drive them offline in favor of much cheaper storage methods as fast as that comes online. The enormous industrial and export value of synthetic hydrogen and ammonia production, after local tankage is full, make them the compelling choice for long-term storage. Initially, those will be burned in gas turbines as they edge out natural gas, both locally and abroad, but improving fuel cells will finally displace turbines.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        > Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. About batteries, that's no longer true - lithium, nickel and cobalt prices have exploded in recent months. Furthermore they're impractical ( you need massive space, and then you have a giant fire hazard) and most importantly, needed elsewhere. EV adoption is already stifled by lack of sufficient supply of batteries, and heavy duty vehicles are let to be electrified. Replacing all cars, buses, trucks, etc. ( and apparently trains in the US because they can't be bothered to electrify like normal countries) with EV versions will require a lot of batteries. And of course they have a limited lifecycle, and need to be replaced. And speaking of lifecycle, a nuclear reactor has 2-3 times ( at least) the life of a solar panel or wind turbine. About hydrogen, green hydrogen in any quantities is only theoretical at the moment. IMHO the best way forward is to hedge bets and do everything - build nuclear power plants ( and ffs don't close existing ones that can continue to operate to replace them with gas "temporarily" like the dimwits in Belgium are doing), expand renewables, invest in different potential solutions for storage. Fuel cells will probably have a part to play in transportation too, e.g. in aviation. However getting rid of the only low-CO2 baseload power source we have is shortsighted.
  - jupp0r 5y ago
    I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. This is because the externalities related to global warming are not accounted for when the market determines the price of gas. Electricity will be more expensive either way and this really hasn’t sunk in yet. Were these costs accounted for, nuclear would be quite competitively priced, even with newer more modern reactors vs running the insecure ones from the 70s forever which is what we do now for the most part. That being said, there is great potential in batteries becoming much denser and cheaper.
    - KennyBlanken 5y ago
      > I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. [Citation required] Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. > nuclear would be quite competitively priced Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive; it's not competing against natural gas. It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. Solar is dropping ~10% per year...
      - sofixa 5y ago
        > Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Then why are there checks notes 0 deployments ? Battery costs are exploding currently due to the hikes in prices of lithium, nickel and cobalt. Battery demand outstrips supply by far, and batteries are needed elsewhere. > It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. They're complimentary, not competition. Solar+wind alone
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Poor research skills do not tell us much about power generation build-out status.
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        > Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Grid-scale batteries are still tiny. Lithium batteries will not solve the grid problem anytime soon. Lithium (and co) will be strained to the max already. Every other technology has barley been deployed at all. And there is already a whole litter of energy storage startups that have died. > Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive In order to get more expensive we would actually have to build plant. But literally any series engineering analysis of modern GenIV plants show gigantic potential of cost improvement. And if we could actually build them in series production there is another order of magnitude of potential cost improvement.
- legulere 5y ago
  With concentrated solar you can store the heat and generate power in the night.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Yes but that costs quite a bit more than PV. Lazard puts it at $126 to $156/MWh. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... That overlaps with Lazard's range for conventional nuclear. And there are lots of reasons to think molten salt reactors in general would be significantly cheaper. Thorcon thinks it can get their cost down to $30/MWh.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Lazard's figures are for the cost of storage already built, not for the cost of the storage that will be built, a much lower figure.
      - DennisP 5y ago
        The figure I quoted above was for thermal solar with storage. That's pretty basic tech, the storage is generally thermal as well. I don't see why the price would drop all that much. Lazard is the source that most renewables advocates point me to, to prove how uncompetitive nuclear is. If your counterargument is that future costs will be lower than today's costs, then I think it's fair to also consider the costs Thorcon and others estimate for molten salt reactors.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        ThorCon true costs are just unknown. Storage, like solar and wind generation, costs are subject to statistical laws.
        MertsA 5y ago
        That's just not the case. Pumped hydro is fundamentally limited in scope. It might be fairly cost effective but you only have a small amount of suitable sites, it can never scale up by many orders of magnitude to support the energy storage needed to enable meeting all energy demands with solar, wind, and hydro. That leaves the only proven energy storage method of grid scale electric batteries which again are only a tiny miniscule fraction of the energy needed. You can make more and more batteries, but lithium isn't plentiful, good luck mining enough lithium to support 100% electric vehicles and energy storage, prices would go through the roof. Personally I think deferring electric vehicle charging and feeding power back into the grid could help a lot here and make this make economic sense, but that doesn't give you enough energy storage to go 100% solar and wind. Right now intermittent power sources are being subsidized heavily with being able to lean on cheap natural gas. Nuclear doesn't depend on any resources that would be strained even if relying on Nuclear power for 100% of demand. Nuclear is also power dense and other than NIMBY concerns is easier to site closer to where the energy is needed than large scale wind farms. Before you say "rooftop solar!" I'll admit, a PV panel is great for being able to scale down to tiny amounts of power instead of just "hundreds of MWe". That still doesn't address the fact that massive swaths of the globe do not get enough sunlight during the winter months to make 100% solar every week of the year worth it. You could currently overproduce enough in the summer to be net zero, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still relying on massive overproduction in sunnier climates and transporting energy large distances or fossil fuels to make up the difference. No chance energy storage bridges the gaps for seasonal changes instead of just a few days. Renewables true costs are just unknown.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
scythe 5y ago
>when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Consider West Virginia. (Just for example.) The Senator from there, buoyed by local public opinion, has been an obstacle to climate policy. A look at the state's economy will quickly debunk the idea that coal mining revenues alone drive this opposition. Instead, West Virginia, like other places where opposition to reform holds fast, has a large manufacturing sector predicated on the ready availability of cheap electricity. Herein lies the real dependence on coal. The mountainous topography makes the widespread deployment of solar panels infeasible, and the cloudy weather and high latitude aren't helping. Wind faces a similar issue. There are no deserts nearby. Nuclear power is attractive not only because it can support a transition to renewable energy[1], but because it can also be deployed readily to mitigate the economic fallout of carbon emissions reduction. And if the last ten years of political upheaval haven't demonstrated the importance of paying attention to the downsides when championing a policy that works well on average, well, I don't know what will. 1: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/pad11983cohen.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  There is, in fact, no need for desert to site solar arrays. Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy, and provides side benefits of higher operating efficiency and higher agricultural yield. Resistance to renewables is nowhere technical, and always political. Disinformation is one political tool.
  - scythe 5y ago
    >Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy Reservoirs are deep, pastures are not relevant everywhere. Both approaches are essentially theoretical at this point due to the increased cost of construction vs. dedicated solar farms. >nowhere technical, and always political. You're forgetting "pragmatic". Lots of things are technically possible but not economically practical, at least not when you need them to be. Nuclear prevents disruption in the short-term; it is not necessary in the very-long-term, but the markets can remain irrational longer than you or I can remain solvent. >Disinformation is one political tool. I know, you replied with it. I studied a bunch of dry economic data to write the gp comment. It's not disinfo to know where money comes from.
Sebb767 5y ago
> why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. Solar is dependent on the time of day (as the sister comments pointed out) and also on weather. Plus, you need to get the energy from the desert to wherever it's needed - this is non-trivial for densely populated areas far from the equator. You also need to maintain the solar panels; sand can be quite bad for their efficiency. Lastly, the areas that do have the space and solar power might be politically unstable, which makes the massive investments needed to get this going quite risky. Real engineering has a good video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Which is why a lot of generating capacity is wind, not just solar. Which is why utilities are focusing on energy storage and grid improvements like upgrading transmission lines to HVDC to make it more practical to 'ship' excess wind/solar to regions that need it.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Batteries require some pretty rare and gnarly materials and still hold only a tiny, tiny bit. It still gets dark for about a third of the day.
    - truffdog 5y ago
      You can always store energy by pushing rocks uphill.
      - ElectricalUnion 5y ago
        The issue is then recovering the energy from said rocks, or not wasting too much energy lifting the rocks in the first place.
      - chriswarbo 5y ago
mdeeks 5y ago
My understanding is that one of the big problems is transmission. It reduces the cost competitiveness when you have to factor in running many more high voltage transmission lines across the US. You need them to get the power from the desert to city centers that have the bulk of demand. Building transmission lines in the US is apparently very hard because there is a lot of red tape and politics and NIMBY-ism (to be fair they are ugly). Nuclear can mostly be built near the centers of demand and reduce the need for elaborate new transmission.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Transmission is cheap. But there is absolutely no need to site solar in deserts. It can be local, anywhere, coexisting neatly with other land use.
  - mdeeks 5y ago
    The Real Engineering youtube link in one of the comments above mine in this thread has an example where putting it in the desert yields three times more than putting it on location in Germany. So there is a significant difference in some places. I'd imagine that makes a difference in being cost competitive. Also in the video: A single 700MW line from from morocco to spain cost 150M. Though I suspect thats a more expensive than overhead lines.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The lesson of the RE video was that they cancelled the Sahara solar projects because panels had got so cheap, putting them right there in Germany was better despite efficiency arguments. Efficiency turned out to matter a lot less than other things, as price fell.
Gibbon1 5y ago
> cheap mirrors/collectors and steel pipes The funny thing happened, solar panels got close to the same cost as a curved mirror.
panick21_ 5y ago
One of the reasons why I favor nuclear is quite simple. And its not new technology. In fact, nuclear is the only green energy that ever has actually reliably powered an industrial nation. France did it in 70/80 with technology not more advanced then what is available in the 60s. They have not only proven that nuclear can do it, but also that nuclear scales amazingly well. There really is no technical question what so ever. Any nation that wants to have a green grid could go to South Korea for example and if you tell them that you would like 20 or even 100 reactors and you are willing to pay, they would build you those reactors. Within 10 years you could likely finish 3-4 reactors a year. Nuclear economics analysis shows that if you actually have a real industry with lots of people experienced in such plants, they become much, much cheaper and far more predictable on timeline. Instead in the West every other nations has some unique plant design that they are only building once and its a totally new industrial project supported by an industry that barley exist anymore and had to shoestring since the 80s. And we are no longer in the 70s, so unlike France with some small amount of effort we could actually avoid using 60s technology. Doing, and building modern plants (see Terrestrial Energy, Moltex Energy, ThorCon) would not only solve the Green energy problem. We could also eat up nuclear fuel waste and (hopefully) nuclear weapons material (as was done in the US with Soviet nukes). We could also produce far more medical isotopes and nuclear batteries for space exploration (and other uses). We could also then use such plants to produce hydrogen (for chemical and industrial processes). Using highly efficient nuclear heat is a far better plan then electrolysis with renewables. These modern plants would as be so much smaller that they could be produced in a factory that could likely produce 100s such reactors in a year, just like we can with airplanes or rockets. You transport them to the a prepared location and drop them into a big nuclear concrete reinforced hole and put a bit steel lid on top. Nuclear is the lowest in land use, lowest in total resources mined, lowest in disruption to the environment and can be built pretty close to where people actually live, so its the lowest in required energy transmission as well. If you use modern nuclear its also doesn't use require water cooling anymore. So, nuclear, even if you use shitty old nuclear would work and is proven to work. Using modern nuclear would improve on that 10-100x. The only thing that prevented this from happening in the 70/80s is that coal was cheaper and the nuclear scare made politicians not interested in pushing it anyway. Today its totally clear that coal killed 100-1000x more people and we are actually willing to invest into clean energy.
godelski 5y ago
> but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1]. I'm not sure why comments (for and against nuclear/renewables) with energy ignore this factor. Wind, hydro, and solar aren't homogeneously distributed around the globe (let alone the US) nor through time. The conversations always devolve into "why do we need nuclear when there's so much sun" vs "baseloads." The truth is that you should be using whichever resource best matches your environment. If you can get away without nuclear, that's totally cool. If you can't, then nuclear is a far better option than coal or gas. That's about it, and I'm tired of pretending it isn't. Pro nuclear is supposed to mean that nuclear tech is on the table. It shouldn't mean "nuclear for everything" or "nuclear everywhere." Just use whatever works in your area and gives you the cheapest and most reliable power (under the constraint of zero operating emissions). Anything else is typically not meaningful discourse unless we're willing to dig way deep into the nuances and everyone involved has a decent amount of expertise on the subject (I'm guessing most of us don't). There's so many constraints that go into power systems (reliability, land usage, access, population density, resource access, diversification, etc) that are never discussed in these forums I just don't think we can meaningfully discuss except at the high abstract level and mostly appeal to experts. Which as far as I'm aware most experts say "nuclear is better than coal and gas. Let's do as much as we can with hydro, wind, and solar, and if that's not enough nuclear is the next best option." [0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-found.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-fou... [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...
- _ph_ 5y ago
  While there certainly are local differences, with the exception of Alaska basically no part of the US is infeasible for solar. As the prices for panels fall, the region of economic usage extends northwards. Germany does very well with solar and the southmost regions start at 48 degrees north.
  - godelski 5y ago
    I literally link maps that show how some areas in the US have a harder time and would require substantially more build out. These same areas have nonhomogeneous sun distribution throughout the year too, with pretty drastic differences. If you require an extra 20-30% more panels, other options become more attractive. If you have longer winters with ever increasing snow storms, other options look better. If you are in a population dense area, something with a small footprint is attractive and with a trade-off. You don't want long power lines that would get cut and shut down your whole city. Nuclear's problem is it's price. But a few factors or trade-offs can make it competitive. Including just a $10/ton carbon tax. Again, I'm not sure why were arguing as if it's renewables vs nuclear. You use whatever is best for your area and matches your needs. All I'm arguing is that nuclear can be advantageous in _some_ situations. (If you think nuclear for everything, or even solar for everything, your ideas about energy are very naive).
Joeri 5y ago
Unless someone can demonstrate that nuclear projects are preventing solar and wind deployments, why not do both?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Money is fungible. Each dollar spent on clean generation displaces some rate of CO2 exhaust. A dollar spent on renewables displaces much more than the same dollar spent on nukes. You cannot spend the same dollar on both. Thus, a dollar spent on nukes instead of renewables brings climate catastrophe nearer.
  - NumberWangMan 5y ago
    I think I take issue with both of your assertions: A dollar spent on renewables displaces much more than the same dollar spent on nukes -- this project is going to provide CO2-free power at 3 cents / kWh. It's in the same ballpark, but also, nuclear's main competition is coal and gas, as they all provide baseline power. Solar with storage can do that, but adding storage drives the cost up. And you cannot spend the same dollar on both -- while this is true, I think the fallacy is that spending a dollar on nuclear power necessarily takes a dollar away from renewables. It's possible that this will sometimes be the case, but it also will clearly be taking a lot of dollars away from coal in places where practically speaking, the choice isn't coal vs renewable, it's coal vs nothing, so if you don't spend the dollar on nuclear, it WILL be spent on coal.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      "is going to provide" is a bold statement given that molten salt reactors are still not ready.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Capital markets compete on a level field.
      - imtringued 5y ago
popcube 5y ago
nuclear fusion can give us actually unlimited energy. maybe it won't work soon, but some people don't want to give ip a probably final resolution.
- adrianN 5y ago
  There is a huge fusion reactor in the sky. We don't need "unlimited" energy, we need cheap energy. There is zero reason to assume that fusion on Earth will be any cheaper than what we already have.
bscphil 5y ago
> It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. This is very funny. The first nuclear power plant began operation in June 1954. That same year is when Bell Labs created the first commercially viable solar cell (although I doubt it was used to generate power for any grids until long after that). So this (implied) claim is not just wrong about the age of nuclear power, it even gets the chronology wrong in comparing it to solar.
- nonplus 5y ago
  I've personally visited the X-10 reactor at Oak Ridge (built in the forties). So in the above, nuclear is not 'technology' until it's producing power for customers? I'm sure the intent of their statement is salt/SMR/other exotic designs that the NRC has not greenlit (and, I think I'm ok NOT greenlighting designs that don't account for 50 - 80 years of maintenance/operation/risk) I don't think technology and invention (or discovery for that matter) are synonymous. There has been progress in nuclear technology, even if it's so far non viable.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
Ah yes, "just build it in the desert". It's only a matter of: - Building hectares upon hectares of solar panels in one of the most hostile regions in the world - Maintaining them because the sand is horribly damaging, and replacing them regularly - ignore the fact that, in the Sahara, there's multiple wars going on over there and that it would be a prime location for a terrorist attack - Somehow, also build the infrastructure to transfer that energy through the desert without losing it all as heat. Remember, you've got multiple GW coming out of here. A single 800kV line will not be enough - have backup power lines in case your inaccessible and hard to repair line breaks. Man, life as a solar zealot sounds easy, all you have to do is ignore physics and reality.
- davidgay 5y ago
  > ... in the Sahara ... I suspect the OP was in the US. Desert would then be something like Nevada - definitely a shortage of wars, and Sagebrush scrub (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_scrub https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_scrub) is probably less destructive than the Saraha's sands...
  - barathr 5y ago
    Yes, sorry, you're right -- I forgot to state that I was speaking from a US-based perspective where there is ample land (and grid infrastructure) that could support baseload solar at scale (in addition to rooftop solar, which will put a huge dent in daytime CO2e/kWh).
yodelshady 5y ago
> solar in the desert Some places don't have deserts. Or even large unpopulated areas. Definitely not large unfarmed areas.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
On the other hand, I don't understand the focus on 'baseload', its effectivley meaningless. But even if we assume it was a meaningful thing to aim for, concentrated solar power isn't as cost effective as solar pv, wind and batteries to provide the same thing. This is basically true of all non-pv solar power. In the past really basic solar heaters have made a lot of sense in many places. As the costs of PV and batteries have plummeted they no longer make sense. When you need electricity, PV gives you that, if you want heat then PV plus heat pump gives you that and cooling at the same time. Even basic things like designing houses for solar gain can be substituted for just slapping cheap PV on the roof now. I'm fairly sure the Saul Griffith of 2022 would agree with that, no matter what the 2009 Saul thought. PV wind and battery price drops have surprised even the smart people paying attention to this area, like him. And here he is, saying "electrify everything": https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-09-07/climate-change-solution-electrify-everything-saul-griffiths/100428158 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-09-07/climate-chang...
FerretFred 5y ago
> a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology This is certainly the case in the UK where the Government is rushing headlong into the Next Shiny (nuclear) Thing. In the meantime they inexplicably scrapped the Swansea Bay Tidal Power project! http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/ http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
"when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done" Every attempt to do this in human history has failed, bar none. There is a reason they build an LNG plant next to every solar plant they build.

gameswithgo 5y ago

jupp0r 5y ago

To answer your question: the sun doesn’t shine at night, that’s why we can’t do solar only (without enough energy storage to get us through the night).

ncmncm 5y ago
We will build out storage, and transmission lines, to "get us through the night".
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Now do the math on how much storage would be needed, and how much would it cost, then show your work. Investors have done exactly that, which is why large scale storage is not happening yet.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. A renewable dollar is still better spent today on generating capacity, and will be for several more years, most places. Waiting, you get more storage for your money, and you then already have overcapacity to charge it from. Until the share of renewables approaches enough to destabilize the power grid, building out renewable generating capacity displaces more carbon from entering the atmosphere, and so is a better use of capital. At the same time, decreasing load factor of nukes and fossil plants, as they become too expensive to win bids, will drive them offline in favor of much cheaper storage methods as fast as that comes online. The enormous industrial and export value of synthetic hydrogen and ammonia production, after local tankage is full, make them the compelling choice for long-term storage. Initially, those will be burned in gas turbines as they edge out natural gas, both locally and abroad, but improving fuel cells will finally displace turbines.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. About batteries, that's no longer true - lithium, nickel and cobalt prices have exploded in recent months. Furthermore they're impractical ( you need massive space, and then you have a giant fire hazard) and most importantly, needed elsewhere. EV adoption is already stifled by lack of sufficient supply of batteries, and heavy duty vehicles are let to be electrified. Replacing all cars, buses, trucks, etc. ( and apparently trains in the US because they can't be bothered to electrify like normal countries) with EV versions will require a lot of batteries. And of course they have a limited lifecycle, and need to be replaced. And speaking of lifecycle, a nuclear reactor has 2-3 times ( at least) the life of a solar panel or wind turbine. About hydrogen, green hydrogen in any quantities is only theoretical at the moment. IMHO the best way forward is to hedge bets and do everything - build nuclear power plants ( and ffs don't close existing ones that can continue to operate to replace them with gas "temporarily" like the dimwits in Belgium are doing), expand renewables, invest in different potential solutions for storage. Fuel cells will probably have a part to play in transportation too, e.g. in aviation. However getting rid of the only low-CO2 baseload power source we have is shortsighted.
- jupp0r 5y ago
  I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. This is because the externalities related to global warming are not accounted for when the market determines the price of gas. Electricity will be more expensive either way and this really hasn’t sunk in yet. Were these costs accounted for, nuclear would be quite competitively priced, even with newer more modern reactors vs running the insecure ones from the 70s forever which is what we do now for the most part. That being said, there is great potential in batteries becoming much denser and cheaper.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    > I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. [Citation required] Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. > nuclear would be quite competitively priced Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive; it's not competing against natural gas. It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. Solar is dropping ~10% per year...
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Then why are there checks notes 0 deployments ? Battery costs are exploding currently due to the hikes in prices of lithium, nickel and cobalt. Battery demand outstrips supply by far, and batteries are needed elsewhere. > It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. They're complimentary, not competition. Solar+wind alone
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Poor research skills do not tell us much about power generation build-out status.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      > Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Grid-scale batteries are still tiny. Lithium batteries will not solve the grid problem anytime soon. Lithium (and co) will be strained to the max already. Every other technology has barley been deployed at all. And there is already a whole litter of energy storage startups that have died. > Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive In order to get more expensive we would actually have to build plant. But literally any series engineering analysis of modern GenIV plants show gigantic potential of cost improvement. And if we could actually build them in series production there is another order of magnitude of potential cost improvement.
legulere 5y ago
With concentrated solar you can store the heat and generate power in the night.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Yes but that costs quite a bit more than PV. Lazard puts it at $126 to $156/MWh. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... That overlaps with Lazard's range for conventional nuclear. And there are lots of reasons to think molten salt reactors in general would be significantly cheaper. Thorcon thinks it can get their cost down to $30/MWh.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Lazard's figures are for the cost of storage already built, not for the cost of the storage that will be built, a much lower figure.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      The figure I quoted above was for thermal solar with storage. That's pretty basic tech, the storage is generally thermal as well. I don't see why the price would drop all that much. Lazard is the source that most renewables advocates point me to, to prove how uncompetitive nuclear is. If your counterargument is that future costs will be lower than today's costs, then I think it's fair to also consider the costs Thorcon and others estimate for molten salt reactors.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        ThorCon true costs are just unknown. Storage, like solar and wind generation, costs are subject to statistical laws.
        MertsA 5y ago
        That's just not the case. Pumped hydro is fundamentally limited in scope. It might be fairly cost effective but you only have a small amount of suitable sites, it can never scale up by many orders of magnitude to support the energy storage needed to enable meeting all energy demands with solar, wind, and hydro. That leaves the only proven energy storage method of grid scale electric batteries which again are only a tiny miniscule fraction of the energy needed. You can make more and more batteries, but lithium isn't plentiful, good luck mining enough lithium to support 100% electric vehicles and energy storage, prices would go through the roof. Personally I think deferring electric vehicle charging and feeding power back into the grid could help a lot here and make this make economic sense, but that doesn't give you enough energy storage to go 100% solar and wind. Right now intermittent power sources are being subsidized heavily with being able to lean on cheap natural gas. Nuclear doesn't depend on any resources that would be strained even if relying on Nuclear power for 100% of demand. Nuclear is also power dense and other than NIMBY concerns is easier to site closer to where the energy is needed than large scale wind farms. Before you say "rooftop solar!" I'll admit, a PV panel is great for being able to scale down to tiny amounts of power instead of just "hundreds of MWe". That still doesn't address the fact that massive swaths of the globe do not get enough sunlight during the winter months to make 100% solar every week of the year worth it. You could currently overproduce enough in the summer to be net zero, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still relying on massive overproduction in sunnier climates and transporting energy large distances or fossil fuels to make up the difference. No chance energy storage bridges the gaps for seasonal changes instead of just a few days. Renewables true costs are just unknown.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

scythe 5y ago

>when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Consider West Virginia. (Just for example.) The Senator from there, buoyed by local public opinion, has been an obstacle to climate policy. A look at the state's economy will quickly debunk the idea that coal mining revenues alone drive this opposition. Instead, West Virginia, like other places where opposition to reform holds fast, has a large manufacturing sector predicated on the ready availability of cheap electricity. Herein lies the real dependence on coal. The mountainous topography makes the widespread deployment of solar panels infeasible, and the cloudy weather and high latitude aren't helping. Wind faces a similar issue. There are no deserts nearby. Nuclear power is attractive not only because it can support a transition to renewable energy[1], but because it can also be deployed readily to mitigate the economic fallout of carbon emissions reduction. And if the last ten years of political upheaval haven't demonstrated the importance of paying attention to the downsides when championing a policy that works well on average, well, I don't know what will. 1: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/pad11983cohen.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...

ncmncm 5y ago
There is, in fact, no need for desert to site solar arrays. Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy, and provides side benefits of higher operating efficiency and higher agricultural yield. Resistance to renewables is nowhere technical, and always political. Disinformation is one political tool.
- scythe 5y ago
  >Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy Reservoirs are deep, pastures are not relevant everywhere. Both approaches are essentially theoretical at this point due to the increased cost of construction vs. dedicated solar farms. >nowhere technical, and always political. You're forgetting "pragmatic". Lots of things are technically possible but not economically practical, at least not when you need them to be. Nuclear prevents disruption in the short-term; it is not necessary in the very-long-term, but the markets can remain irrational longer than you or I can remain solvent. >Disinformation is one political tool. I know, you replied with it. I studied a bunch of dry economic data to write the gp comment. It's not disinfo to know where money comes from.

Sebb767 5y ago

> why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. Solar is dependent on the time of day (as the sister comments pointed out) and also on weather. Plus, you need to get the energy from the desert to wherever it's needed - this is non-trivial for densely populated areas far from the equator. You also need to maintain the solar panels; sand can be quite bad for their efficiency. Lastly, the areas that do have the space and solar power might be politically unstable, which makes the massive investments needed to get this going quite risky. Real engineering has a good video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Which is why a lot of generating capacity is wind, not just solar. Which is why utilities are focusing on energy storage and grid improvements like upgrading transmission lines to HVDC to make it more practical to 'ship' excess wind/solar to regions that need it.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Batteries require some pretty rare and gnarly materials and still hold only a tiny, tiny bit. It still gets dark for about a third of the day.
  - truffdog 5y ago
    You can always store energy by pushing rocks uphill.
    - ElectricalUnion 5y ago
      The issue is then recovering the energy from said rocks, or not wasting too much energy lifting the rocks in the first place.
    - chriswarbo 5y ago

mdeeks 5y ago

My understanding is that one of the big problems is transmission. It reduces the cost competitiveness when you have to factor in running many more high voltage transmission lines across the US. You need them to get the power from the desert to city centers that have the bulk of demand. Building transmission lines in the US is apparently very hard because there is a lot of red tape and politics and NIMBY-ism (to be fair they are ugly). Nuclear can mostly be built near the centers of demand and reduce the need for elaborate new transmission.

ncmncm 5y ago
Transmission is cheap. But there is absolutely no need to site solar in deserts. It can be local, anywhere, coexisting neatly with other land use.
- mdeeks 5y ago
  The Real Engineering youtube link in one of the comments above mine in this thread has an example where putting it in the desert yields three times more than putting it on location in Germany. So there is a significant difference in some places. I'd imagine that makes a difference in being cost competitive. Also in the video: A single 700MW line from from morocco to spain cost 150M. Though I suspect thats a more expensive than overhead lines.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The lesson of the RE video was that they cancelled the Sahara solar projects because panels had got so cheap, putting them right there in Germany was better despite efficiency arguments. Efficiency turned out to matter a lot less than other things, as price fell.

Gibbon1 5y ago

> cheap mirrors/collectors and steel pipes The funny thing happened, solar panels got close to the same cost as a curved mirror.

panick21_ 5y ago

One of the reasons why I favor nuclear is quite simple. And its not new technology. In fact, nuclear is the only green energy that ever has actually reliably powered an industrial nation. France did it in 70/80 with technology not more advanced then what is available in the 60s. They have not only proven that nuclear can do it, but also that nuclear scales amazingly well. There really is no technical question what so ever. Any nation that wants to have a green grid could go to South Korea for example and if you tell them that you would like 20 or even 100 reactors and you are willing to pay, they would build you those reactors. Within 10 years you could likely finish 3-4 reactors a year. Nuclear economics analysis shows that if you actually have a real industry with lots of people experienced in such plants, they become much, much cheaper and far more predictable on timeline. Instead in the West every other nations has some unique plant design that they are only building once and its a totally new industrial project supported by an industry that barley exist anymore and had to shoestring since the 80s. And we are no longer in the 70s, so unlike France with some small amount of effort we could actually avoid using 60s technology. Doing, and building modern plants (see Terrestrial Energy, Moltex Energy, ThorCon) would not only solve the Green energy problem. We could also eat up nuclear fuel waste and (hopefully) nuclear weapons material (as was done in the US with Soviet nukes). We could also produce far more medical isotopes and nuclear batteries for space exploration (and other uses). We could also then use such plants to produce hydrogen (for chemical and industrial processes). Using highly efficient nuclear heat is a far better plan then electrolysis with renewables. These modern plants would as be so much smaller that they could be produced in a factory that could likely produce 100s such reactors in a year, just like we can with airplanes or rockets. You transport them to the a prepared location and drop them into a big nuclear concrete reinforced hole and put a bit steel lid on top. Nuclear is the lowest in land use, lowest in total resources mined, lowest in disruption to the environment and can be built pretty close to where people actually live, so its the lowest in required energy transmission as well. If you use modern nuclear its also doesn't use require water cooling anymore. So, nuclear, even if you use shitty old nuclear would work and is proven to work. Using modern nuclear would improve on that 10-100x. The only thing that prevented this from happening in the 70/80s is that coal was cheaper and the nuclear scare made politicians not interested in pushing it anyway. Today its totally clear that coal killed 100-1000x more people and we are actually willing to invest into clean energy.

godelski 5y ago

> but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1]. I'm not sure why comments (for and against nuclear/renewables) with energy ignore this factor. Wind, hydro, and solar aren't homogeneously distributed around the globe (let alone the US) nor through time. The conversations always devolve into "why do we need nuclear when there's so much sun" vs "baseloads." The truth is that you should be using whichever resource best matches your environment. If you can get away without nuclear, that's totally cool. If you can't, then nuclear is a far better option than coal or gas. That's about it, and I'm tired of pretending it isn't. Pro nuclear is supposed to mean that nuclear tech is on the table. It shouldn't mean "nuclear for everything" or "nuclear everywhere." Just use whatever works in your area and gives you the cheapest and most reliable power (under the constraint of zero operating emissions). Anything else is typically not meaningful discourse unless we're willing to dig way deep into the nuances and everyone involved has a decent amount of expertise on the subject (I'm guessing most of us don't). There's so many constraints that go into power systems (reliability, land usage, access, population density, resource access, diversification, etc) that are never discussed in these forums I just don't think we can meaningfully discuss except at the high abstract level and mostly appeal to experts. Which as far as I'm aware most experts say "nuclear is better than coal and gas. Let's do as much as we can with hydro, wind, and solar, and if that's not enough nuclear is the next best option." [0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-found.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-fou... [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...

_ph_ 5y ago
While there certainly are local differences, with the exception of Alaska basically no part of the US is infeasible for solar. As the prices for panels fall, the region of economic usage extends northwards. Germany does very well with solar and the southmost regions start at 48 degrees north.
- godelski 5y ago
  I literally link maps that show how some areas in the US have a harder time and would require substantially more build out. These same areas have nonhomogeneous sun distribution throughout the year too, with pretty drastic differences. If you require an extra 20-30% more panels, other options become more attractive. If you have longer winters with ever increasing snow storms, other options look better. If you are in a population dense area, something with a small footprint is attractive and with a trade-off. You don't want long power lines that would get cut and shut down your whole city. Nuclear's problem is it's price. But a few factors or trade-offs can make it competitive. Including just a $10/ton carbon tax. Again, I'm not sure why were arguing as if it's renewables vs nuclear. You use whatever is best for your area and matches your needs. All I'm arguing is that nuclear can be advantageous in _some_ situations. (If you think nuclear for everything, or even solar for everything, your ideas about energy are very naive).

Joeri 5y ago

Unless someone can demonstrate that nuclear projects are preventing solar and wind deployments, why not do both?

ncmncm 5y ago
Money is fungible. Each dollar spent on clean generation displaces some rate of CO2 exhaust. A dollar spent on renewables displaces much more than the same dollar spent on nukes. You cannot spend the same dollar on both. Thus, a dollar spent on nukes instead of renewables brings climate catastrophe nearer.
- NumberWangMan 5y ago
  I think I take issue with both of your assertions: A dollar spent on renewables displaces much more than the same dollar spent on nukes -- this project is going to provide CO2-free power at 3 cents / kWh. It's in the same ballpark, but also, nuclear's main competition is coal and gas, as they all provide baseline power. Solar with storage can do that, but adding storage drives the cost up. And you cannot spend the same dollar on both -- while this is true, I think the fallacy is that spending a dollar on nuclear power necessarily takes a dollar away from renewables. It's possible that this will sometimes be the case, but it also will clearly be taking a lot of dollars away from coal in places where practically speaking, the choice isn't coal vs renewable, it's coal vs nothing, so if you don't spend the dollar on nuclear, it WILL be spent on coal.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    "is going to provide" is a bold statement given that molten salt reactors are still not ready.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Capital markets compete on a level field.
    - imtringued 5y ago

popcube 5y ago

nuclear fusion can give us actually unlimited energy. maybe it won't work soon, but some people don't want to give ip a probably final resolution.

adrianN 5y ago
There is a huge fusion reactor in the sky. We don't need "unlimited" energy, we need cheap energy. There is zero reason to assume that fusion on Earth will be any cheaper than what we already have.

bscphil 5y ago

> It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. This is very funny. The first nuclear power plant began operation in June 1954. That same year is when Bell Labs created the first commercially viable solar cell (although I doubt it was used to generate power for any grids until long after that). So this (implied) claim is not just wrong about the age of nuclear power, it even gets the chronology wrong in comparing it to solar.

nonplus 5y ago
I've personally visited the X-10 reactor at Oak Ridge (built in the forties). So in the above, nuclear is not 'technology' until it's producing power for customers? I'm sure the intent of their statement is salt/SMR/other exotic designs that the NRC has not greenlit (and, I think I'm ok NOT greenlighting designs that don't account for 50 - 80 years of maintenance/operation/risk) I don't think technology and invention (or discovery for that matter) are synonymous. There has been progress in nuclear technology, even if it's so far non viable.

ohgodplsno 5y ago

Ah yes, "just build it in the desert". It's only a matter of: - Building hectares upon hectares of solar panels in one of the most hostile regions in the world - Maintaining them because the sand is horribly damaging, and replacing them regularly - ignore the fact that, in the Sahara, there's multiple wars going on over there and that it would be a prime location for a terrorist attack - Somehow, also build the infrastructure to transfer that energy through the desert without losing it all as heat. Remember, you've got multiple GW coming out of here. A single 800kV line will not be enough - have backup power lines in case your inaccessible and hard to repair line breaks. Man, life as a solar zealot sounds easy, all you have to do is ignore physics and reality.

davidgay 5y ago
> ... in the Sahara ... I suspect the OP was in the US. Desert would then be something like Nevada - definitely a shortage of wars, and Sagebrush scrub (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_scrub https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_scrub) is probably less destructive than the Saraha's sands...
- barathr 5y ago
  Yes, sorry, you're right -- I forgot to state that I was speaking from a US-based perspective where there is ample land (and grid infrastructure) that could support baseload solar at scale (in addition to rooftop solar, which will put a huge dent in daytime CO2e/kWh).

yodelshady 5y ago

> solar in the desert Some places don't have deserts. Or even large unpopulated areas. Definitely not large unfarmed areas.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

On the other hand, I don't understand the focus on 'baseload', its effectivley meaningless. But even if we assume it was a meaningful thing to aim for, concentrated solar power isn't as cost effective as solar pv, wind and batteries to provide the same thing. This is basically true of all non-pv solar power. In the past really basic solar heaters have made a lot of sense in many places. As the costs of PV and batteries have plummeted they no longer make sense. When you need electricity, PV gives you that, if you want heat then PV plus heat pump gives you that and cooling at the same time. Even basic things like designing houses for solar gain can be substituted for just slapping cheap PV on the roof now. I'm fairly sure the Saul Griffith of 2022 would agree with that, no matter what the 2009 Saul thought. PV wind and battery price drops have surprised even the smart people paying attention to this area, like him. And here he is, saying "electrify everything": https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-09-07/climate-change-solution-electrify-everything-saul-griffiths/100428158 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-09-07/climate-chang...

FerretFred 5y ago

> a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology This is certainly the case in the UK where the Government is rushing headlong into the Next Shiny (nuclear) Thing. In the meantime they inexplicably scrapped the Swansea Bay Tidal Power project! http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/ http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

"when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done" Every attempt to do this in human history has failed, bar none. There is a reason they build an LNG plant next to every solar plant they build.