5 ms·

And again, the article does the same mistake they always do: attack wind and solar more than fossil or hydro. Instead of selling nuclear as the ideal companion

And again, the article does the same mistake they always do: attack wind and solar more than fossil or hydro. Instead of selling nuclear as the ideal companion to solar, it's always a sad try to convince us that we are wrong investing in solar and eolic, and the money should be going to more nuclear. My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV. They like fossils, hydro and nuclear because you can't run them in you backyard at competitive prices. But you can buy PV and thermosolar on friday at Home Depot, slap it to the roof, and have a better ROI than any utility starting sunday. Get a Powerball or something similar, and they would never see another dollar from your pocket. They, nuclear lobby, are known to be maneuvering to get more nuclear reactors installed quickly before is too late, but on conditions like: 1) government subsidizes the costs, 2) they assume possible overbudgets, 3) insures the plants for 100 years or so, and 4) guarantee an income for 50 years, in concept of "backup". For that they need a favorable public opinion, begging for more nuclear plants, and the politics would abide.

ip26 4y ago
Ironically, to me their best play is to board the renewable train as a base load alternative to storage, which is not yet mature.
- runarberg 4y ago
  Currently nuclear reactors take well over a decade from construction to start of operation. I think few are willing to bet that storage will still be a problem 10 years from now. Carbon capture from gas natural gas (also an alternative that exists today) is another technology you’d have to bet won’t become economically feasible by the time your nuclear power plant finally becomes operational. Honestly a base-load alternative is not such a strong argument in favor.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
  - modo_mario 4y ago
    >Currently nuclear reactors take well over a decade from construction to start of operation. If I look at recent ones that went online over the past years most took 5 years.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      I’m looking at the list of reactors on Wikipedia and what I’m seeing is pretty much a 8-10 year minimum from construction start to operation start. China is a big exception to this patterns (taking 7-9 years), but China is in a league of its own when it comes to mega-projects. The of the few reactors that did start operation outside of China in the past 20 years there is often some involvement of Chinese construction. (e.g. reactors 2 and 3 in the Karichi nuclear plant). In Europe, Rostov is one of few that seems to have broken the 10 year minimum with their 3rd and 4th reactors (7 and 8 years respectively). But reactors 1 and 2 in the same facility started construction in 1983 but didn’t start operation until 2001 and 2010 respectively. Scanning the list of new reactors it seems that 8-10 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in an existing plants, and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities. This gives 2030 as the earliest reasonable time for a new reactor in an existing plant outside of China that you already have the design for, and 2040 for new facilities if you are starting your planning phase now. Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040? Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then? Honestly though, if we still haven’t sorted out our carbon emission before 2040 I think we have bigger things to worry about then 24 hour access to energy at a low price.
      - modo_mario 4y ago
        >and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities. Our existing facilities were completely new and took about 5 years. Time has gone up but still.: Page 11 https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/264c91d4-d443-4edb-bc08-f5175c0ac6ba/performance-report-2021-cop26.pdf.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/264c91d4-d443-4edb-bc08-f... >Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040? Big fat yes. Absolutely. >Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then? Yep and if it's closer to economically feasible i'm afraid it'll be due to the CO2 being sold for enhanced oil recovery as we pass peak oil.
adrianN 4y ago
The economics of nuclear power don't make it an ideal companion to wind and solar. You want to have backup power for days where it's neither windy nor sunny. So you need a lot of nuclear. But then you want to use renewables when they're available, so most of the time you run your reactors way below capacity. Unfortunately most of the cost of nuclear is capex, so every minute you don't run at 100% makes nuclear power much more expensive.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  That is why companies like Moltex Energy are building a nuclear reactor with a combination of a heat battery. So that they can do 100% utilization and then make massive profit when solar is not there. However that means you are innovating in nuclear and in heat batteries.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    If you have good storage tech you can just store surplus renewable energy and don't really need the expensive reactor part though.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Its heat storage, renewables don't generate heat. This would be more like the technology used in CSP.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        Renewables generate electricity which is very easy to turn into heat.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I am skeptical of Moltex's cost models.
mirzap 4y ago
I really can't understand how so many smart people fall for wind/solar promises. If you just think about it you have to realize it is not reliable solution for 21 century, it is not scalable for ever increasing (exponential) energy demand, population growth, land needed for expansion. It is simply stupid to rely on energy produced from sources that are by nature unpredictable (like wind, or sun). Solar/Wind can and should be present as energy sources, but only as supportive sources, with no more than 5-10% of total production. Everything more than that is risky and countries will have hard wake up call one day.
- adrianN 4y ago
  We have a long way to grow before solar energy is not enough for our energy needs.
  - mirzap 4y ago
    It is not enough already. Its output is not reliable already. It takes huge space, land that could be used differently (like say expansion, so housing becomes cheaper, or farming, etc.), it has huge environmental impact (nothing lives anymore where solar farms are built). No thanks. I'll take nuclear any day.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      We don't have enough solar power because we didn't build enough yet. It's not reliable because we haven't build enough yet. It doesn't use a lot of land (try doing the math), and a lot of the land it uses can be parking lots or roofs. It can also be used in the form of Agrophotovoltaics, so the assertion that nothing lives where solar farms are built is wrong too.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      If land use is the hill to die on a much better target is the beef industry. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore
pvaldes 4y ago
> My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV This is exactly the problem. There are plenty of artificial obstacles put to solar in the last years just to deter people to adopt it (the infamous sun tax for example, or the hard bureaucracy). Lately they tried to hire the roofs to put their own solar panels and keep the control over it. The solution is clear and has been always there for decades, is just that is not the solution that they want Solar panel prices are subject to regulation capture. They could sink overnight and became much more affordable if politicians have a will.

ip26 4y ago

Ironically, to me their best play is to board the renewable train as a base load alternative to storage, which is not yet mature.

runarberg 4y ago
Currently nuclear reactors take well over a decade from construction to start of operation. I think few are willing to bet that storage will still be a problem 10 years from now. Carbon capture from gas natural gas (also an alternative that exists today) is another technology you’d have to bet won’t become economically feasible by the time your nuclear power plant finally becomes operational. Honestly a base-load alternative is not such a strong argument in favor.
- HyperSane 4y ago
- modo_mario 4y ago
  >Currently nuclear reactors take well over a decade from construction to start of operation. If I look at recent ones that went online over the past years most took 5 years.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I’m looking at the list of reactors on Wikipedia and what I’m seeing is pretty much a 8-10 year minimum from construction start to operation start. China is a big exception to this patterns (taking 7-9 years), but China is in a league of its own when it comes to mega-projects. The of the few reactors that did start operation outside of China in the past 20 years there is often some involvement of Chinese construction. (e.g. reactors 2 and 3 in the Karichi nuclear plant). In Europe, Rostov is one of few that seems to have broken the 10 year minimum with their 3rd and 4th reactors (7 and 8 years respectively). But reactors 1 and 2 in the same facility started construction in 1983 but didn’t start operation until 2001 and 2010 respectively. Scanning the list of new reactors it seems that 8-10 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in an existing plants, and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities. This gives 2030 as the earliest reasonable time for a new reactor in an existing plant outside of China that you already have the design for, and 2040 for new facilities if you are starting your planning phase now. Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040? Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then? Honestly though, if we still haven’t sorted out our carbon emission before 2040 I think we have bigger things to worry about then 24 hour access to energy at a low price.
    - modo_mario 4y ago
      >and close to 20 years is a reasonable estimate for reactors in new facilities. Our existing facilities were completely new and took about 5 years. Time has gone up but still.: Page 11 https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/264c91d4-d443-4edb-bc08-f5175c0ac6ba/performance-report-2021-cop26.pdf.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/264c91d4-d443-4edb-bc08-f... >Are you willing to risk that energy storage is still gonna be lacking in 2030-2040? Big fat yes. Absolutely. >Are you sure carbon capturing of natural gas plants will still be economically unfeasible then? Yep and if it's closer to economically feasible i'm afraid it'll be due to the CO2 being sold for enhanced oil recovery as we pass peak oil.

adrianN 4y ago

The economics of nuclear power don't make it an ideal companion to wind and solar. You want to have backup power for days where it's neither windy nor sunny. So you need a lot of nuclear. But then you want to use renewables when they're available, so most of the time you run your reactors way below capacity. Unfortunately most of the cost of nuclear is capex, so every minute you don't run at 100% makes nuclear power much more expensive.

panick21_ 4y ago
That is why companies like Moltex Energy are building a nuclear reactor with a combination of a heat battery. So that they can do 100% utilization and then make massive profit when solar is not there. However that means you are innovating in nuclear and in heat batteries.
- adrianN 4y ago
  If you have good storage tech you can just store surplus renewable energy and don't really need the expensive reactor part though.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Its heat storage, renewables don't generate heat. This would be more like the technology used in CSP.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      Renewables generate electricity which is very easy to turn into heat.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  I am skeptical of Moltex's cost models.

mirzap 4y ago

I really can't understand how so many smart people fall for wind/solar promises. If you just think about it you have to realize it is not reliable solution for 21 century, it is not scalable for ever increasing (exponential) energy demand, population growth, land needed for expansion. It is simply stupid to rely on energy produced from sources that are by nature unpredictable (like wind, or sun). Solar/Wind can and should be present as energy sources, but only as supportive sources, with no more than 5-10% of total production. Everything more than that is risky and countries will have hard wake up call one day.

adrianN 4y ago
We have a long way to grow before solar energy is not enough for our energy needs.
- mirzap 4y ago
  It is not enough already. Its output is not reliable already. It takes huge space, land that could be used differently (like say expansion, so housing becomes cheaper, or farming, etc.), it has huge environmental impact (nothing lives anymore where solar farms are built). No thanks. I'll take nuclear any day.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    We don't have enough solar power because we didn't build enough yet. It's not reliable because we haven't build enough yet. It doesn't use a lot of land (try doing the math), and a lot of the land it uses can be parking lots or roofs. It can also be used in the form of Agrophotovoltaics, so the assertion that nothing lives where solar farms are built is wrong too.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    If land use is the hill to die on a much better target is the beef industry. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore

pvaldes 4y ago

> My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV This is exactly the problem. There are plenty of artificial obstacles put to solar in the last years just to deter people to adopt it (the infamous sun tax for example, or the hard bureaucracy). Lately they tried to hire the roofs to put their own solar panels and keep the control over it. The solution is clear and has been always there for decades, is just that is not the solution that they want Solar panel prices are subject to regulation capture. They could sink overnight and became much more affordable if politicians have a will.