8 ms·

> If you care enough about global warming to reach carbon neutrality, then obviously, gas plants are not a long term solution. In that case you need to go to fu

by merb 4y ago

> If you care enough about global warming to reach carbon neutrality, then obviously, gas plants are not a long term solution. In that case you need to go to fully renewable, or some combination of renewables and nuclear. btw. a lot of people say that, but it's wrong. you need gas for renewables OR nuclear OR you need storage, no matter if you go full nuclear OR renewables, the outcome is the same. at least as long as there is no solution to turn of nuclear power on and off, which will probably never happen.

trashtester 4y ago
Nuclear plants can be ramped up and down, at rates that depend on type. Look at energy production in aircraft carriers or nuclear subs, for instance, they are almost 100% nuclear. While you are right that a baseline of nuclear can benefit from some complementing by gas and/or storage, there is almost an order of magnitude difference to the degree. There is even a trend of making nuclear plants more flexible, to such a degree that they may help reduce the reliance on gas to keep renewables viable: https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/ https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power... Obviously, that comes at a cost, since nuclear is by far most economical if run at relatively constant loads, but to claim that nuclear suffers from the same problems when it comes to adjusting output to demand, is so inaccurate as to the degree, that I would consider it a false equivalence.
- natmaka 4y ago
  A nuclear sub throws away uselessly generated electricity. Doing so in a civilian environment would be economically absurd. Nuclear's load-following capacity is quite limited and not sufficient for a grid: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=natmaka#31559869 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=natmaka#31559869 France is a leader at this game, but nonetheless uses fossil fuels (nowadays 91%) to generate electricity (it is also due to peak consumption).
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > but nonetheless uses fossil fuels (nowadays 91%) You mean 9.1% fossil fuels for electricity, right? Anyway, that's already pretty good, at least 6x better than comparable countries As for the load-following capacity, it is getting better with newer reactor types. And according to wikipedia, reactors built after 2000 were designed with pretty good load following capabilities, but have not necessarily been used that way, primarily for economic reasons. Anyway, we're talking about only the last 5-10% of electricity production, if that. Whereas for renewables, this is about 60% of the production, and even that is only possible for Germany through depending on their neighbours to compensate for the variance in output.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      > You mean 9.1% fossil fuels for electricity, right? Yes, I do. Yes, emissions-wise it is very good! A 'renewable'-based energetic system could do the same. Yes, load-following capacity, it is getting better, but not good enough. And compensating it by over-provisioning would be, economically, a deal breaker. Which source states that "60%" gas backup is needed in a renewable-based energetic system? Denmark already more than half of its electricity thanks to wind power, officially plans to reach 84% in 2035 and AFAIK nobody stated that it cannot be done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark As stated above we know how to compensate for most of intermittency by spreading out (at continental scale) production units and using a mix (wind, solar...): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
      - trashtester 4y ago
        > Yes, emissions-wise it is very good! A 'renewable'-based energetic system could do the same. Norway has 110% renewable electricity production compared to consumption, despite having almost 100% of heating be electricity (or "biomass"=firewood) based. Fossil heating of residential housing has been banned since 2020. So you are right, in theory, 100% renewable for electricity is possible. If you have a lot of hydro. For countries with little hydro, and especially for those who rely primarily on wind power 90+% becomes exceedingly expensive without massive investments in storage, given current pricing for storage > Denmark already more than half of its electricity thanks to wind power, officially plans to reach 84% in 2035 Denmark's current wind power productin already relies on Sweden and Norway to store surplus production in hydro plants. As more wind power is built in most countries, and with directly lines from Norway to Germany and the UK, this storage capacity will reach its limit soon. (Also, the electricity trade is becoming extremely unpopular in Norway and Sweden, since consumers, who in those cases rely on electricity for heating, are getting tired of paying Danish prices.) And this is for a small country for Denmark, with the perfect neighbours for this trade. Such storage is not available for the larger Europen countries, such as Germany, France, Poland, UK, Italy, Spain, etc. > As stated above we know how to compensate for most of intermittency by spreading out (at continental scale) production units and using a mix (wind, solar...): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation- https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... As far as I can tell, the development has been in the opposite direction. More trade has led to greater fluctuations, since many countries produce too little for their own consumption. (Denmark imports 17% of their consumption, for instance). If this continues, it is highly likely that the Norwegian (and possibly Swedish) governments is forced to withdraw from such cooperation due to public outrage. One thing is to pay $0.2 to $0.4 per kwh if your heating is done by natural gas. Another is to pay that amount when you live in an arctic or near-arctic climate and rely on electricity for everything, including the car, when you are used to historical prices of about $0.05 per kwh. (And that is with high taxes, production cost for hydro in Norway is about $0.015 per kwh) In my opinion, the only way to reach 100% non-carbon-based power is for consumers to be able to buy it at prices no higher than about $0.1 per kwh, preferably $0.07 or so. That means that levelized costs need to be a bit lower, perhaps around $0.05 per kwh. For renewables (apart from hydro), a lot of storage must be added (several days to over a week) to reach such levelized costs, even if there is plenty of trade. Also, transfering power from Naples to Stockholm is pretty expensive, both in transfer loss and grid capacity. The estimates I've seen, is that this (ie acceptable prices for stable/stored renewables) will become realistic around 2050, possibly a bit sooner. Meanwhile, levelized costs for nuclear may, for countries able to do it as efficiently as Korea and China, already be there. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/report-claims-uk-nuclear-costs-hi7g7he7st-world/ https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/report-claims-uk-nu... If there is enough focus on building affordable nuclear, Europe should be able to do the same. At such prices, Europe would be able to shift a significant percentage of its energy production over to emission-free production, without breaking the bank. An ideal mix for the total EU area, given current technology might be something like: 50% nuclear 40% renewable 10% other (hydro, gas, hydrogen, etc) As storage technologies gets better, nuclear can then be gradually phased out over the next 100 years or so (or be replaced by fusion if/when it arrives). I believe such a mix would enable a stable supply, at a price that people are willing to pay use for heating/air conditioning for their houses, recharge their cars, and not just to keep the light on using LED bulbs.

by merb 4y ago

trashtester 4y ago

Nuclear plants can be ramped up and down, at rates that depend on type. Look at energy production in aircraft carriers or nuclear subs, for instance, they are almost 100% nuclear. While you are right that a baseline of nuclear can benefit from some complementing by gas and/or storage, there is almost an order of magnitude difference to the degree. There is even a trend of making nuclear plants more flexible, to such a degree that they may help reduce the reliance on gas to keep renewables viable: https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/ https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power... Obviously, that comes at a cost, since nuclear is by far most economical if run at relatively constant loads, but to claim that nuclear suffers from the same problems when it comes to adjusting output to demand, is so inaccurate as to the degree, that I would consider it a false equivalence.

natmaka 4y ago
A nuclear sub throws away uselessly generated electricity. Doing so in a civilian environment would be economically absurd. Nuclear's load-following capacity is quite limited and not sufficient for a grid: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=natmaka#31559869 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=natmaka#31559869 France is a leader at this game, but nonetheless uses fossil fuels (nowadays 91%) to generate electricity (it is also due to peak consumption).
- trashtester 4y ago
  > but nonetheless uses fossil fuels (nowadays 91%) You mean 9.1% fossil fuels for electricity, right? Anyway, that's already pretty good, at least 6x better than comparable countries As for the load-following capacity, it is getting better with newer reactor types. And according to wikipedia, reactors built after 2000 were designed with pretty good load following capabilities, but have not necessarily been used that way, primarily for economic reasons. Anyway, we're talking about only the last 5-10% of electricity production, if that. Whereas for renewables, this is about 60% of the production, and even that is only possible for Germany through depending on their neighbours to compensate for the variance in output.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    > You mean 9.1% fossil fuels for electricity, right? Yes, I do. Yes, emissions-wise it is very good! A 'renewable'-based energetic system could do the same. Yes, load-following capacity, it is getting better, but not good enough. And compensating it by over-provisioning would be, economically, a deal breaker. Which source states that "60%" gas backup is needed in a renewable-based energetic system? Denmark already more than half of its electricity thanks to wind power, officially plans to reach 84% in 2035 and AFAIK nobody stated that it cannot be done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark As stated above we know how to compensate for most of intermittency by spreading out (at continental scale) production units and using a mix (wind, solar...): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > Yes, emissions-wise it is very good! A 'renewable'-based energetic system could do the same. Norway has 110% renewable electricity production compared to consumption, despite having almost 100% of heating be electricity (or "biomass"=firewood) based. Fossil heating of residential housing has been banned since 2020. So you are right, in theory, 100% renewable for electricity is possible. If you have a lot of hydro. For countries with little hydro, and especially for those who rely primarily on wind power 90+% becomes exceedingly expensive without massive investments in storage, given current pricing for storage > Denmark already more than half of its electricity thanks to wind power, officially plans to reach 84% in 2035 Denmark's current wind power productin already relies on Sweden and Norway to store surplus production in hydro plants. As more wind power is built in most countries, and with directly lines from Norway to Germany and the UK, this storage capacity will reach its limit soon. (Also, the electricity trade is becoming extremely unpopular in Norway and Sweden, since consumers, who in those cases rely on electricity for heating, are getting tired of paying Danish prices.) And this is for a small country for Denmark, with the perfect neighbours for this trade. Such storage is not available for the larger Europen countries, such as Germany, France, Poland, UK, Italy, Spain, etc. > As stated above we know how to compensate for most of intermittency by spreading out (at continental scale) production units and using a mix (wind, solar...): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation- https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... As far as I can tell, the development has been in the opposite direction. More trade has led to greater fluctuations, since many countries produce too little for their own consumption. (Denmark imports 17% of their consumption, for instance). If this continues, it is highly likely that the Norwegian (and possibly Swedish) governments is forced to withdraw from such cooperation due to public outrage. One thing is to pay $0.2 to $0.4 per kwh if your heating is done by natural gas. Another is to pay that amount when you live in an arctic or near-arctic climate and rely on electricity for everything, including the car, when you are used to historical prices of about $0.05 per kwh. (And that is with high taxes, production cost for hydro in Norway is about $0.015 per kwh) In my opinion, the only way to reach 100% non-carbon-based power is for consumers to be able to buy it at prices no higher than about $0.1 per kwh, preferably $0.07 or so. That means that levelized costs need to be a bit lower, perhaps around $0.05 per kwh. For renewables (apart from hydro), a lot of storage must be added (several days to over a week) to reach such levelized costs, even if there is plenty of trade. Also, transfering power from Naples to Stockholm is pretty expensive, both in transfer loss and grid capacity. The estimates I've seen, is that this (ie acceptable prices for stable/stored renewables) will become realistic around 2050, possibly a bit sooner. Meanwhile, levelized costs for nuclear may, for countries able to do it as efficiently as Korea and China, already be there. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/report-claims-uk-nuclear-costs-hi7g7he7st-world/ https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/report-claims-uk-nu... If there is enough focus on building affordable nuclear, Europe should be able to do the same. At such prices, Europe would be able to shift a significant percentage of its energy production over to emission-free production, without breaking the bank. An ideal mix for the total EU area, given current technology might be something like: 50% nuclear 40% renewable 10% other (hydro, gas, hydrogen, etc) As storage technologies gets better, nuclear can then be gradually phased out over the next 100 years or so (or be replaced by fusion if/when it arrives). I believe such a mix would enable a stable supply, at a price that people are willing to pay use for heating/air conditioning for their houses, recharge their cars, and not just to keep the light on using LED bulbs.