7 ms·

> it depends on a lot of countries participating. Maybe Greece has other ideas? Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining

> it depends on a lot of countries participating. Maybe Greece has other ideas? Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. Even if they aren't the geographic regions where wind regimes are not well-correlated with those of rich nations (Western Europe) are huge, hosting many nations. >> The last Korean president was against nuclear and practically froze it in Korea. > The newly elected president is pro-nuclear, though. I'm aware of some shady dealings with earlier plants, but I didn't see any good argument that it shifted the cost enought to really matter for the long term electricity price. This is very difficult to say, however incidents and accidents do wildly raise costs, and shady practices raise the probability of incidents/accidents. > Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, and in the meantime recycling of renewable units progressed quite a bit, to the point of now being mandatory in more and more jurisdictions. Not to mention better load factors. On the nuclear side those are current estimated emissions, but they may sharply climb if more reactors are built as we will need more uranium => lower and lower ore grade => more emissions: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 >> In any case who will build them? > I said ideal, meaning that should be the goal. Every movement toward that goal would be positive. 30% is much better than going to 15%. This, indeed, is not an option for the time being. I doubt it may become one before at the very least 2040. Too little, too late. In the meantime I can't see why the renewable boom won't continue. > if there really is will to do it, it absolutely can be done France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's. > Europe is unlikely to act with such resolve, though. Indeed: member nations have too different conceptions and hopes about energy. >> We more and more know how to build 'renewables' > Yes, but like with nuclear, there is a lot of fudging the number even when not accounting for storage needs. Very probably, however not being able to build nuclear reactors at realistic delays and costs stops it in the starting block, without even considering other potential problems (potential major accident, uranium dependency, dangerous waste disposal, effective decommission costs...) > And for the storage part, all we have is some kind of hope that it will become cheap enough in the future. This is fully determined by a detailed perspective (characteristics of an adequate (continental) mix). > Northern Europe is almost at "Peak Renewable" already There is potential (in Germany the current challenge is grid-related: North to South), and it becomes huge while going a little bit towards the South. France offshore wind potential, for example, is gigantic and completely untapped. > (and Southern Europe doesn't seem very interested) As far as I understand due to a lack of financial resources. Saturation of production units in Western Europe will diverse investments. > For every new windmill we build from now on (without storage), we are going to add to price fluctuations, meaning that the sales price for wind (before subsidies) will be reduced for each mill. This is only true globally and on average. Any new turbine implanted in a geographic zone enjoying wind regimes with sufficiently low correlation to the zones were existing fleets exist will produce when the spot price is high, and therefore be a very good investment. > Being about 30 times lower than natural gas (without carbon capture) is only a rounding error away from zero, imo. As long as it is profitable there will be investors, for example willing to play low risk (compensating low ROI), and satisfying the demand (energy consumption) usually leads it to grow.

trashtester 4y ago
>> it depends on a lot of countries participating. Maybe Greece has other ideas? > Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiatives like this that depend on the participation of large numbers of independent entities to even get started, usually fail. >> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources > This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, I was just referencing the link you provided. > France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's. France already succeeded, the way I see it. My main concern is when countries like Sweden and Germany tear down their plants. France actually intends to build new ones. > Any new turbine implanted in a geographic zone enjoying wind regimes with sufficiently low correlation to the zones were existing fleets exist will produce when the spot price is high, and therefore be a very good investment. Your entire argument seems to hinge on the ability to average out production by a huge grid. You linked to a an article that references a Nature Climate Change paper, which is paywalled. The abstract from that paper doesn't provide numbers for exactly how much reduction in variability can be achieved, and what it would cost in terms of investments. In the 1960's, forecasters promised that nuclear would provide energy so cheap it would essentially be free. Then there was a backlash that lasted almost two generations. Now, maybe, the understanding of nuclear is approaching neutral again. My expectation, based on the hard numbers I've been able to find, is that wind power will hit a similar wall. The public will be disillusioned in many countries, and optimism will be replaced by pessimism. Maybe Denmark will remain pro wind power (like France has been for Nuclear), but in many places wind will simply be rejected. At some point, renewables surely will take over, and maybe eventually solar will be so cheap that hydrogen can be produced at a lower cost than natural gas. Until then, I think we should make sure we keep up our nuclear production, and add as much as possible.
- natmaka 4y ago
  >> Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. > Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiatives like this that depend on the participation of large numbers of independent entities to even get started, usually fail. The entire European Union was aggregated this way. One can doubt it is efficient or even good, however participation of a large number of nations is a done deal. >>> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources >> This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, > I was just referencing the link you provided. As noted there is AFAIK no solid more recent meta-study. >> France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's. >> France already succeeded France built its nuclear fleet starting 50 years ago. It was then a rich (thanks to the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ), shock-full of industries, electricity consumption is then the third of current amounts, and the project is highly strategic (due to the risk of oil embargo, as illustrated by effects of then recent wars in Israel). Nothing of this is true anymore, and it makes for a huge difference. > France actually intends to build new ones. Indeed, since 2004 France tries to build an EPR reactor, the building process started in 2007 and was planned to deliver the reactor in 2012. It may be delivered in 2023, for nearly 6 times the budget... > paywalled You may find a copy at usual 'unofficial' sources (not that I hint to commit any potentially illegal action). > what it would cost in terms of investments. It studies wind regimes, not economics. This is a valid argument. The bottomline here is mainly the proportion of production surpluses which will become consumed electricity. > In the 1960's, forecasters promised that nuclear would provide energy so cheap it would essentially be free. Then there was a backlash that lasted almost two > generations. The real backlash started after TMI and was at its highest after Chernobyl (1986). > Now, maybe, the understanding of nuclear is approaching neutral again. In 2010 (just before Fukushima) it could be so. > wind power will hit a similar wall. The public will be disillusioned This is possible, however the probability of a major blunder à la TMI or Chernobyl implying wind turbines is very low. > renewables surely will take over, and maybe eventually solar will be so cheap that hydrogen can be produced at a lower cost than natural gas. Why not? However I doubt anyone now alive will see this. > Until then, I think we should make sure we keep up our nuclear production This is rather solid, but one has to consider some implications (risk of major accident, dangerous waste to be disposed of, I know: waste isn't a problem for you, however no nation (bar, to an extent, South Korea and Finland) have potentially proper long-term storage for it, and strictly not a single one has sufficient storage for its active fleet. This may not be as simple as some think, and this is not only a matter of "extreme" (useless) political measures: this stuff is nasty. > and add as much as possible. This is debatable, as building reactors become more and more slow and expensive, even in zones where the local power wants it and can enforce its will (China). Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project.

trashtester 4y ago

>> it depends on a lot of countries participating. Maybe Greece has other ideas? > Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiatives like this that depend on the participation of large numbers of independent entities to even get started, usually fail. >> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources > This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, I was just referencing the link you provided. > France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's. France already succeeded, the way I see it. My main concern is when countries like Sweden and Germany tear down their plants. France actually intends to build new ones. > Any new turbine implanted in a geographic zone enjoying wind regimes with sufficiently low correlation to the zones were existing fleets exist will produce when the spot price is high, and therefore be a very good investment. Your entire argument seems to hinge on the ability to average out production by a huge grid. You linked to a an article that references a Nature Climate Change paper, which is paywalled. The abstract from that paper doesn't provide numbers for exactly how much reduction in variability can be achieved, and what it would cost in terms of investments. In the 1960's, forecasters promised that nuclear would provide energy so cheap it would essentially be free. Then there was a backlash that lasted almost two generations. Now, maybe, the understanding of nuclear is approaching neutral again. My expectation, based on the hard numbers I've been able to find, is that wind power will hit a similar wall. The public will be disillusioned in many countries, and optimism will be replaced by pessimism. Maybe Denmark will remain pro wind power (like France has been for Nuclear), but in many places wind will simply be rejected. At some point, renewables surely will take over, and maybe eventually solar will be so cheap that hydrogen can be produced at a lower cost than natural gas. Until then, I think we should make sure we keep up our nuclear production, and add as much as possible.

natmaka 4y ago
>> Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. > Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiatives like this that depend on the participation of large numbers of independent entities to even get started, usually fail. The entire European Union was aggregated this way. One can doubt it is efficient or even good, however participation of a large number of nations is a done deal. >>> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources >> This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, > I was just referencing the link you provided. As noted there is AFAIK no solid more recent meta-study. >> France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's. >> France already succeeded France built its nuclear fleet starting 50 years ago. It was then a rich (thanks to the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ), shock-full of industries, electricity consumption is then the third of current amounts, and the project is highly strategic (due to the risk of oil embargo, as illustrated by effects of then recent wars in Israel). Nothing of this is true anymore, and it makes for a huge difference. > France actually intends to build new ones. Indeed, since 2004 France tries to build an EPR reactor, the building process started in 2007 and was planned to deliver the reactor in 2012. It may be delivered in 2023, for nearly 6 times the budget... > paywalled You may find a copy at usual 'unofficial' sources (not that I hint to commit any potentially illegal action). > what it would cost in terms of investments. It studies wind regimes, not economics. This is a valid argument. The bottomline here is mainly the proportion of production surpluses which will become consumed electricity. > In the 1960's, forecasters promised that nuclear would provide energy so cheap it would essentially be free. Then there was a backlash that lasted almost two > generations. The real backlash started after TMI and was at its highest after Chernobyl (1986). > Now, maybe, the understanding of nuclear is approaching neutral again. In 2010 (just before Fukushima) it could be so. > wind power will hit a similar wall. The public will be disillusioned This is possible, however the probability of a major blunder à la TMI or Chernobyl implying wind turbines is very low. > renewables surely will take over, and maybe eventually solar will be so cheap that hydrogen can be produced at a lower cost than natural gas. Why not? However I doubt anyone now alive will see this. > Until then, I think we should make sure we keep up our nuclear production This is rather solid, but one has to consider some implications (risk of major accident, dangerous waste to be disposed of, I know: waste isn't a problem for you, however no nation (bar, to an extent, South Korea and Finland) have potentially proper long-term storage for it, and strictly not a single one has sufficient storage for its active fleet. This may not be as simple as some think, and this is not only a matter of "extreme" (useless) political measures: this stuff is nasty. > and add as much as possible. This is debatable, as building reactors become more and more slow and expensive, even in zones where the local power wants it and can enforce its will (China). Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project.