6 ms·

As long as we need to fill the gaps around supply of renewables, we will need to build either nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Imagine a new 1 GW nuclear plant co

As long as we need to fill the gaps around supply of renewables, we will need to build either nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Imagine a new 1 GW nuclear plant compared to a new 1 GW natural gas plant. Which is better for the world on the margin? Also, the trend I perceive is that as societies develop, they gain both desire and ability to make the commons less tragic. China is the world's largest carbon emitter yet somehow their strategy to decarbonize feels more credible than the USA's (to the extent that we even have one at all).

atwood22 4y ago
It doesn’t seem wise to vastly increase risk just for marginal capacity when we are already vastly exceeding our carbon budget.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> As long as we need to fill the gaps around supply of renewables, There are several assumptions hidden here. One is that it's a choice between building new renewable and fossil fuel plants vs. new nuclear. The real choice is between moving some fossil fuels to renewable immediately, or leaving fossil fuels online while a nuclear plant gets delayed 5 times. The second is the assumption that all capacity to consume energy much be fulfilled and must remain constant. We can turn down the aluminium smelter. We can smelt steel with electricity. We can use renewables to drive chemical reactions. We can make fertilizer with electricity. Noone dies if we stop doing these things sometimes. The only downside is it costs a little more. But this is the downside of nuclear anyway, so where's the problem? We can also time shift energy with things like thermochemical storage. A huge amount of emissions come from burning natural gas for heat. Thermochemical storage is a fraction of the cost of batteries and is compact enough to store a year's worth of energy.

6 ms·

As long as we need to fill the gaps around supply of renewables, we will need to build either nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Imagine a new 1 GW nuclear plant co

by chrismartin 4y ago

atwood22 4y ago
It doesn’t seem wise to vastly increase risk just for marginal capacity when we are already vastly exceeding our carbon budget.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> As long as we need to fill the gaps around supply of renewables, There are several assumptions hidden here. One is that it's a choice between building new renewable and fossil fuel plants vs. new nuclear. The real choice is between moving some fossil fuels to renewable immediately, or leaving fossil fuels online while a nuclear plant gets delayed 5 times. The second is the assumption that all capacity to consume energy much be fulfilled and must remain constant. We can turn down the aluminium smelter. We can smelt steel with electricity. We can use renewables to drive chemical reactions. We can make fertilizer with electricity. Noone dies if we stop doing these things sometimes. The only downside is it costs a little more. But this is the downside of nuclear anyway, so where's the problem? We can also time shift energy with things like thermochemical storage. A huge amount of emissions come from burning natural gas for heat. Thermochemical storage is a fraction of the cost of batteries and is compact enough to store a year's worth of energy.