4 ms·

Aren’t renewables already more cost effective than nuclear? See for example here: https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and-conventional-ene

Aren’t renewables already more cost effective than nuclear? See for example here: https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and-conventional-energy-sources https://energycentral.com/c/ec/comparing-costs-renewable-and... Storage issues might be solved before new nuclear plants go online at the current pace of progress. Perhaps a few years of gas until the renewable infrastructure is set up will suffice? At least the issue does not seem to be as clear cut as most people claim they are.

slfnflctd 4y ago
> Storage issues might be solved The problem as I see it as that any '100% renewable' solution which could be ramped up relatively quickly would necessitate technology that doesn't exist yet. Of course there will be some progress in tech, but we have no way to predict exactly what it will be. It will also be extremely expensive simply due to the massive scale required, and there are numerous powerful & well funded groups who will throw down roadblocks along the way. The reality is that we will continue to use fossil fuels for a long time. While nuclear energy is our best low-carbon option for baseline power, we probably aren't going to be able to build new generators quickly enough to displace natural gas usage for decades, and that's only if it's politically possible to do so. Which continues to appear to be a long shot. In short, we're holding our collective breath for a 'hail Mary' breakthrough that somehow cuts through all the intractable quandaries and gives us a viable path forward. In the mean time, the increase in severe climate events will destabilize nations and make it even harder to reach the kinds of major agreements needed to go down such a path. It's probably a good idea to either own land or have friends in an area near a large freshwater lake that isn't prone to flooding and has a history of handling both extreme heat and extreme cold. There's no way of knowing whether you'll end up embroiled in civil unrest or full blown war in such an area, but at least you can limit the number & types of risks you need to worry about.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  > that doesn't exist yet. Batteries exist, and estimates of how many would be needed are around 50TWh. We have over 500GWh of annual battery production, and the doubling period for that capacity is under 18 months.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Also pumped hydro storage exists, and isn't too picky about where it can be placed (as opposed to hydro dams)
  - slfnflctd 4y ago
    The majority of that battery production is going into EVs. We will need much more to do both EVs and grid scale storage. This is where different types of batteries that are too impractical for vehicle use might come into play, but we still don't have a clear idea which of those battery technologies will be appropriate and/or agreed upon for grid use, let alone who is going to pay for the mind boggling amount of them we will need.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      Sure, they'll go into cars first, that's where it's needed first. Grids can get to about 90% green without many batteries, its the last ten percent that need a ton of batteries. Given how far they are from 90%, that's most of a decade before they are needed in massive quantities. As for cost, if the next decade drops costs 90% like the previous 4 decades have, then 50 TWh will cost $500 billion. Given that the electricity market is $3T annually, that's peanuts.
- adrianN 4y ago
  All the necessary technology exists. PV and and wind to generate power, some batteries to buffer short fluctuations and hydrogen for term storage. It's all a matter of spending the money to build the infrastructure.
looperhacks 4y ago
The search for storage has been ongoing since the sixties (in one form or another) and the current approach (started about ten years ago) is "planned" to lead to a decision 2031. Knowing how well such projects usually go in Germany and the massive pushback, especially from Bavaria in the last few weeks (not unfounded - one year before the exit-decision it was found out that our current storage was an absolute disaster), the storage site will probably be found when we don't need nuclear energy anymore (either because we found better solutions or it's too late anyway)
tehbeard 4y ago
The only thing more "just around the corner" than better battery storage is fusion..
panick21_ 4y ago
If you essentially stop any technology progress for 40 years in one technology, other technologies might catuch up. But there is a MASSIVE amount of potential for nuclear to be cheaper and better. People in 2000~ were more then happy to predict massive improvement in cost for renewables if money was invested but absolutely denied that the same could happen with nuclear. Had the same amount been invested in nuclear, prices there could also have changed.
- adrianN 4y ago
  We don't have another twenty years to wait for nuclear costs to maybe come down and then another twenty years to build enough cheap nuclear to become carbon neutral. Renewables are cheap today and can be built much faster than nuclear.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Even if the first generation is not cost effective, neither was the first generation of wind and solar. However we have 28 years until 2050 and for really deep carbonation having advanced nuclear would be really awesome. Not to mention other benefits like radio isotopes, medical isotopes, rational solution to the removal of the current waste, a backup option in case a volcano disrupts solar on a large scale and so on. We are not doomed just because not every single $ of spending is going into more solar panels.

slfnflctd 4y ago

> Storage issues might be solved The problem as I see it as that any '100% renewable' solution which could be ramped up relatively quickly would necessitate technology that doesn't exist yet. Of course there will be some progress in tech, but we have no way to predict exactly what it will be. It will also be extremely expensive simply due to the massive scale required, and there are numerous powerful & well funded groups who will throw down roadblocks along the way. The reality is that we will continue to use fossil fuels for a long time. While nuclear energy is our best low-carbon option for baseline power, we probably aren't going to be able to build new generators quickly enough to displace natural gas usage for decades, and that's only if it's politically possible to do so. Which continues to appear to be a long shot. In short, we're holding our collective breath for a 'hail Mary' breakthrough that somehow cuts through all the intractable quandaries and gives us a viable path forward. In the mean time, the increase in severe climate events will destabilize nations and make it even harder to reach the kinds of major agreements needed to go down such a path. It's probably a good idea to either own land or have friends in an area near a large freshwater lake that isn't prone to flooding and has a history of handling both extreme heat and extreme cold. There's no way of knowing whether you'll end up embroiled in civil unrest or full blown war in such an area, but at least you can limit the number & types of risks you need to worry about.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
> that doesn't exist yet. Batteries exist, and estimates of how many would be needed are around 50TWh. We have over 500GWh of annual battery production, and the doubling period for that capacity is under 18 months.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Also pumped hydro storage exists, and isn't too picky about where it can be placed (as opposed to hydro dams)
- slfnflctd 4y ago
  The majority of that battery production is going into EVs. We will need much more to do both EVs and grid scale storage. This is where different types of batteries that are too impractical for vehicle use might come into play, but we still don't have a clear idea which of those battery technologies will be appropriate and/or agreed upon for grid use, let alone who is going to pay for the mind boggling amount of them we will need.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Sure, they'll go into cars first, that's where it's needed first. Grids can get to about 90% green without many batteries, its the last ten percent that need a ton of batteries. Given how far they are from 90%, that's most of a decade before they are needed in massive quantities. As for cost, if the next decade drops costs 90% like the previous 4 decades have, then 50 TWh will cost $500 billion. Given that the electricity market is $3T annually, that's peanuts.
adrianN 4y ago
All the necessary technology exists. PV and and wind to generate power, some batteries to buffer short fluctuations and hydrogen for term storage. It's all a matter of spending the money to build the infrastructure.

looperhacks 4y ago

The search for storage has been ongoing since the sixties (in one form or another) and the current approach (started about ten years ago) is "planned" to lead to a decision 2031. Knowing how well such projects usually go in Germany and the massive pushback, especially from Bavaria in the last few weeks (not unfounded - one year before the exit-decision it was found out that our current storage was an absolute disaster), the storage site will probably be found when we don't need nuclear energy anymore (either because we found better solutions or it's too late anyway)

tehbeard 4y ago

The only thing more "just around the corner" than better battery storage is fusion..

panick21_ 4y ago

If you essentially stop any technology progress for 40 years in one technology, other technologies might catuch up. But there is a MASSIVE amount of potential for nuclear to be cheaper and better. People in 2000~ were more then happy to predict massive improvement in cost for renewables if money was invested but absolutely denied that the same could happen with nuclear. Had the same amount been invested in nuclear, prices there could also have changed.

adrianN 4y ago
We don't have another twenty years to wait for nuclear costs to maybe come down and then another twenty years to build enough cheap nuclear to become carbon neutral. Renewables are cheap today and can be built much faster than nuclear.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Even if the first generation is not cost effective, neither was the first generation of wind and solar. However we have 28 years until 2050 and for really deep carbonation having advanced nuclear would be really awesome. Not to mention other benefits like radio isotopes, medical isotopes, rational solution to the removal of the current waste, a backup option in case a volcano disrupts solar on a large scale and so on. We are not doomed just because not every single $ of spending is going into more solar panels.