5 ms·

The "good fraction of the capital required" is for the nuclear part and nuclear plants also have stratospheric operating costs, which this doesn't address. This

The "good fraction of the capital required" is for the nuclear part and nuclear plants also have stratospheric operating costs, which this doesn't address. This also doesn't really address the fact that nukes require a fuckton of power to bring up that coal plants don't; nukes also require that fuckton of power when they're not generating, because reactors have to be cooled continuously, even when not "on". Or the lack of qualified labor to run the plants. Or geological stability to assure the plant, and its waste storage, are safe. Nuclear has the highest opex of any electrical generation method; it's also estimated by some to have a greenhouse gas impact worse than natural gas. Wind costs a fraction of any other electricity generation method, solar isn't far behind, and continuing to drop around 10% a year. This is why you see wind and solar replacing decommissioned nukes at a ratio of 6:1 (not including commercial or residential capacity) in the US and growing, and coal plants being decommissioned. There are now multiple technologies for recycling turbine blades, and solar panels are recycleable (or just resellable in the secondhand market where people don't care that they've lost 20% of their capacity.) Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commercial use (iron flow, for example.) HVDC transmission is spreading, with higher capacity, lower cost, and higher efficiency for moving electricity greater distances (in other words, it's less of a deal if it's really windy in one spot and not in another, and ideally-suited wind sites can be further from where electricity is needed.) Fanboys who think it's as simple as "if only we could work past the NIMBY issue" are ignoring the fact that nuclear power has not been economically viable for three quarters of a century (it has only been viable because of the military applications of nuclear power), while wind and solar keep getting more economically viable, and our grid keeps leaning more and more toward being distributed. Nobody needs the slow-reacting, base load generation nuclear provides. Wind and solar are as distributable and scaleable as you want. Wind and solar have significantly simpler supply chains, regulations, and maintenance/repair/inspection needs. You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind and solar. Wind and solar don't require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power. Wind and solar have little/no security concerns nor do you need to worry about area social/political/economic stability. Wind/solar don't generate waste that is weaponizeable. You don't need a highly trained workforce to install, operate, repair, and decommission wind/solar.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
'it's also estimated by some to have a greenhouse gas impact worse than natural gas' I would expect such outrageous claims to be heavilly substantiated > You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind Really? Almost 1,000 feet tall, top heavy structure under huge windload does not need geologican stability? 'require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power.' How or why is this ever relevant, they operate at >90 capacity factor for 2 years at a time
lillecarl 5y ago
Your comment loses it's value when you're trying to poke all the holes. > Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commercial use (iron flow, for example.) > HVDC transmission is spreading, with higher capacity, lower cost, and higher efficiency for moving electricity greater distances (in other words, it's less of a deal if it's really windy in one spot and not in another, and ideally-suited wind sites can be further from where electricity is needed.) How do you transform DC up and down? By converting it to AC. Running it through a transformer and converting it back, HVDC isn't gonna take over the world, certain stretches might be HVDC where beneficial but not all over the world. The difference with nuclear is that anyone can build and operate next-gen storage, so you're commercial right out the door. I could hook my UPS up to the grid and feed back, commercial success! > Wind and solar are as distributable and scaleable as you want. Not without storage, which is harder to scale than production of other kinds. > You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind and solar. I don't see the USP, there are plenty of geologically stable areas in most countries. > Wind and solar don't require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power. They have the added downside of only producing power when the weather guy says so. > Wind/solar don't generate waste that is weaponizeable. Good point, for now. > You don't need a highly trained workforce to install, operate, repair, and decommission wind/solar. No, you need a disposable workforce that can die from workforce accidents without anyone batting an eye. Bill Gates is a good example of someone with a bit of time around the smartest people on earth asking for advice where he can make a difference, here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet: https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I Does it sound reasonable that we should use all good tech we have? To me it does, and it includes all energy sources in different amounts and situations.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

'it's also estimated by some to have a greenhouse gas impact worse than natural gas' I would expect such outrageous claims to be heavilly substantiated > You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind Really? Almost 1,000 feet tall, top heavy structure under huge windload does not need geologican stability? 'require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power.' How or why is this ever relevant, they operate at >90 capacity factor for 2 years at a time

lillecarl 5y ago

Your comment loses it's value when you're trying to poke all the holes. > Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commercial use (iron flow, for example.) > HVDC transmission is spreading, with higher capacity, lower cost, and higher efficiency for moving electricity greater distances (in other words, it's less of a deal if it's really windy in one spot and not in another, and ideally-suited wind sites can be further from where electricity is needed.) How do you transform DC up and down? By converting it to AC. Running it through a transformer and converting it back, HVDC isn't gonna take over the world, certain stretches might be HVDC where beneficial but not all over the world. The difference with nuclear is that anyone can build and operate next-gen storage, so you're commercial right out the door. I could hook my UPS up to the grid and feed back, commercial success! > Wind and solar are as distributable and scaleable as you want. Not without storage, which is harder to scale than production of other kinds. > You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind and solar. I don't see the USP, there are plenty of geologically stable areas in most countries. > Wind and solar don't require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power. They have the added downside of only producing power when the weather guy says so. > Wind/solar don't generate waste that is weaponizeable. Good point, for now. > You don't need a highly trained workforce to install, operate, repair, and decommission wind/solar. No, you need a disposable workforce that can die from workforce accidents without anyone batting an eye. Bill Gates is a good example of someone with a bit of time around the smartest people on earth asking for advice where he can make a difference, here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet: https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I Does it sound reasonable that we should use all good tech we have? To me it does, and it includes all energy sources in different amounts and situations.