5 ms·

It is not about "cleanness", it is not about "costs in future". There are two core points why nuclear plants matter and only they matter so far. First they are

It is not about "cleanness", it is not about "costs in future". There are two core points why nuclear plants matter and only they matter so far. First they are practical - unlike all renewables nuclear energy plant provides stable influx of energy to the electric grid, regardless of the weather condition. As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited. And so far we don't see any true innovation in the long term, large scale batteries tech - ritual monthly "at last, new battery tech invented in X" article in popular magazines is not enough since those "new" batteries either has to work in 10 Kelvin temperature or would need to have size of the Moon. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is, unfortunately, not practical as it requires very specific terrain and water sources. It is great we can build them here and there, but that's not the solution for the problem. Secondly, nuclear energy plants does not produce CO2 and this is what we want to get rid off, as I understand. Nuclear wastes are different story, unfortunately for the past 50 years there was almost no innovation in nuclear plants sector as well since everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists. Nuclear wastes are radiating, which means there is energy there, let's try to find the way how to use is, maybe it is easier than the search for the battery Holy Grail.

Krasnol 4y ago
> First they are practical - unlike all renewables nuclear energy plant provides stable influx of energy to the electric grid, regardless of the weather condition. That was "practical" in the 80s. Today it's a problem. You need to have a flexible grid to profit from the cheapest energy available. Having some expensive energy source clog up the grid so you have to turn off solar or wind is a bad thing. > As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way. They’re not even the leading way. A combination of efficiency, demand response, transmission, optimal mix of wind and solar, along with some storage will be more than enough to get us beyond 100% of current service demand. And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade. > nce everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists. Billions disappear in nuclear research and has been since it's been invented. Billions which could have been invested into renewables which unlike nuclear produces real and fast progress so please...don't spread fake news.
- JetSetWilly 4y ago
  > That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way. How is it a myth? Weather systems are big. it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind. You need something to keep the lights on when there's no wind, night time etc. That's your base load right there. > And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade. Pointing to a bunch of german coal plants keeping the lights on is not a great argument. Germany has a very polluting "base load" generation capability in comparison to other countries. imagine how much less carbon they would be emitting right now if they had just kept their nuclear plants going. Renewables cannot get rid of a need for base load generation capability at 100% of demand. Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century. So the options are - handwave about batteries and pumped storage, ensuring that coal and gas is what actually used to meet base load, or invest in nuclear. If you actually want low carbon electricity generation, nuclear is the only option.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind OK, but the EU grid is bigger than that, so the question should be "how common are weather patterns that combine low wind with low sun over the entire continent rather than just a quarter of it?" > Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century. If cars are electrified, their batteries have enough for grid storage even after losing to much capacity to remain in the vehicles. This isn't a guarantee they will be built, but I think it's likely as people are building battery factories (and mineral mines to supply them) as fast as they're allowed to.
    - JetSetWilly 4y ago
      Well, pretty common, as weather systems are typically continental in scale. Even if you built enough wind turbines to satisfy 10000% of EU demand within the EU (which is what you would need to have a shot at this kind of redundancy) the amount of huge HVDC interconnects you would need criss-crossing the continent make it completely impractical.

Krasnol 4y ago

> First they are practical - unlike all renewables nuclear energy plant provides stable influx of energy to the electric grid, regardless of the weather condition. That was "practical" in the 80s. Today it's a problem. You need to have a flexible grid to profit from the cheapest energy available. Having some expensive energy source clog up the grid so you have to turn off solar or wind is a bad thing. > As long as we don't have good and, again, practical energy storage, renewables usability will be always limited That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way. They’re not even the leading way. A combination of efficiency, demand response, transmission, optimal mix of wind and solar, along with some storage will be more than enough to get us beyond 100% of current service demand. And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade. > nce everyone who would like to work on this was treated by the Academia like Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccination activists. Billions disappear in nuclear research and has been since it's been invented. Billions which could have been invested into renewables which unlike nuclear produces real and fast progress so please...don't spread fake news.

JetSetWilly 4y ago
> That baseload myth is dead these days. Batteries are merely one way to store energy but they’re not the only way. How is it a myth? Weather systems are big. it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind. You need something to keep the lights on when there's no wind, night time etc. That's your base load right there. > And all of this is already working in parts of the world. For example in the EU where all that green and brown energy from Germany is saving Nuclear-Frances ass at the moment and has been every summer and winter for at least the last decade. Pointing to a bunch of german coal plants keeping the lights on is not a great argument. Germany has a very polluting "base load" generation capability in comparison to other countries. imagine how much less carbon they would be emitting right now if they had just kept their nuclear plants going. Renewables cannot get rid of a need for base load generation capability at 100% of demand. Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century. So the options are - handwave about batteries and pumped storage, ensuring that coal and gas is what actually used to meet base load, or invest in nuclear. If you actually want low carbon electricity generation, nuclear is the only option.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > it is not unusual for eg. the entirety of North-western Europe to have a calm spell of little to no wind OK, but the EU grid is bigger than that, so the question should be "how common are weather patterns that combine low wind with low sun over the entire continent rather than just a quarter of it?" > Batteries and storage just aren't going to scale up to do that (or even 1% of it) in this century. If cars are electrified, their batteries have enough for grid storage even after losing to much capacity to remain in the vehicles. This isn't a guarantee they will be built, but I think it's likely as people are building battery factories (and mineral mines to supply them) as fast as they're allowed to.
  - JetSetWilly 4y ago
    Well, pretty common, as weather systems are typically continental in scale. Even if you built enough wind turbines to satisfy 10000% of EU demand within the EU (which is what you would need to have a shot at this kind of redundancy) the amount of huge HVDC interconnects you would need criss-crossing the continent make it completely impractical.