5 ms·

This is the CORE of the energy debate.. People throw out whatever nonsense they like to support their position. "Nuclear costs 3-5x" and as you point out, com

This is the CORE of the energy debate.. People throw out whatever nonsense they like to support their position. "Nuclear costs 3-5x" and as you point out, compared to what? The cost of sitting around for 20 years debating this and not taking any action at all has lead to much worse problems - power shortages. These "anti-nuclear" types fail to apply logic to their debate. I asked how much power is produced by solar during the long winter months, i suspect they will not respond as it is against their view - solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates. You need a reliable "base" system and nuclear is very well suited for this. Our plants (CANDU) can be refuelled while producing near-full power greatly reducing the need to shut them down. The reason the temperatures fall below zero during the winter where i live is obvious.. The energy we receive from the sun has been greatly reduced. How would solar power address the reduction in available solar energy, and the increased demand for energy for heating?

Gwypaas 4y ago
Because no one proposes solar in the north European winter. It's all about the geographically decoupled off shore wind. For the cost see for example: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- kennend3 4y ago
  I assume you find the "subsidized wind" prices attractive? Who pays the subsidies?
  - ideamotor 4y ago
    Maybe google some actual research papers on this and other energy policy questions? But what do I know.
RC_ITR 4y ago
>solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates I agree with a lot of what you say, but also don't fall into the trap of what you are accusing others of doing. In places like Germany, Wind and solar actually counter-balance each other very well. [0] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-capacity-factors-for-wind-and-PV-for-Germany-The-dots-represent_fig3_334171681 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-ca...
wizofaus 4y ago
Surely the main issue with winter in more northern regions is the significantly reduced period of the day for which any solar-generation is even possible. During the daylight hours there's still more than enough total insolation to heat the small amount of air we need to inside our houses, but you obviously need some form of storage (or incredibly good insulation, arguably a form of storage too) to ensure buildings can remain a comfortable temperature throughout the day and night. From a purely technical feasibility point of view, there's always sufficient insolation somewhere/somewhen to provide all our energy needs, but whether it's practical or economical compared to alternatives such as nuclear is worth doing the sums on.
- petre 4y ago
  > During the daylight hours there's still more than enough total insolation to heat the small amount of air we need to inside our houses I sold solar panel for 10 years. Both solar thermal and PV. This is simply not true. You need to greatly oversize your panels (≥6x) and also have a passive house with a huge storage buffer (>5000 liters). In the summer you end up having to pump the waste heat into a pool. There are also maintenance costs. For PV you need huge amounts of battery storage. It's simply not economical above the 40° parallel to use solar for heating. For DHW or charging your EV it's okay, but in the winter you'll get at most 1/6 the amount of heat or electricity that you get in the summer provided that the panels are not covered in snow.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    That would seem to be essentially agreeing with my point - there's enough insolation but it's not necessarily economical to capture it with home PV systems.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
Coal has been at all time record highs the past couple of years (well before Russia Ukraine war), and it's not even close. Like 3x previous record highs and more like 6x usual prices. 10 years ago I was assured that coal was dead, killed by wind and solar, which were already cheaper than coal at $60/T, and falling. How is it possible then that 10 years on with all the vastly expanded and even cheaper and better renewables, that people are paying $430/T for coal? And it's not the remaining few legacy assets winding down as they compete for a dwindling supply of fuel, global coal production is rising, new coal power plants are being built. I've never heard any of these people go back and reflect on what they got wrong about their predictions about coal, what they missed and where their logic was flawed. What I do hear frequently though is "nuclear is dead, renewables are already cheaper"... I'm a little less open minded this time around.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  I think you're mixing things here. The western world, the part of the world that bet on renewables, has reduced their dependency on coal. For the rest of the world that is not the case. It's very easy and fast to build a coal plant and pretty much every country has access to the raw material (independency). For the most part you don't need a specialized workforce either, which you do need for nuclear. It's also not intermittent like solar and wind and the supply chains for solar and wind wouldn't have been able to keep up anyway.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I don't think I'm mixing things up, I think you are. Coal extraction in the western world is making huge amounts of money and scaling up production, exactly the opposite of what the naysayers were incessantly parroting. Coal is no different than wind and solar in terms of accessibility of plant or product. Actually renewables are significantly easier to acquire and scale and deploy in many cases -- millions of people have solar panels on their houses for example. Private, as well as municipal or county level installations are common. As are much larger ones. > For the most part you don't need a specialized workforce either, which you do need for nuclear. You certainly do. You can't just throw a bunch of people from the street together and tell them to run a coal mine, supply line, and power plant. > It's also not intermittent like solar and wind and the supply chains for solar and wind wouldn't have been able to keep up anyway. Might be zeroing in on some of the problems...

Gwypaas 4y ago

Because no one proposes solar in the north European winter. It's all about the geographically decoupled off shore wind. For the cost see for example: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

kennend3 4y ago
I assume you find the "subsidized wind" prices attractive? Who pays the subsidies?
- ideamotor 4y ago
  Maybe google some actual research papers on this and other energy policy questions? But what do I know.

RC_ITR 4y ago

>solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates I agree with a lot of what you say, but also don't fall into the trap of what you are accusing others of doing. In places like Germany, Wind and solar actually counter-balance each other very well. [0] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-capacity-factors-for-wind-and-PV-for-Germany-The-dots-represent_fig3_334171681 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-ca...

wizofaus 4y ago

Surely the main issue with winter in more northern regions is the significantly reduced period of the day for which any solar-generation is even possible. During the daylight hours there's still more than enough total insolation to heat the small amount of air we need to inside our houses, but you obviously need some form of storage (or incredibly good insulation, arguably a form of storage too) to ensure buildings can remain a comfortable temperature throughout the day and night. From a purely technical feasibility point of view, there's always sufficient insolation somewhere/somewhen to provide all our energy needs, but whether it's practical or economical compared to alternatives such as nuclear is worth doing the sums on.

petre 4y ago
> During the daylight hours there's still more than enough total insolation to heat the small amount of air we need to inside our houses I sold solar panel for 10 years. Both solar thermal and PV. This is simply not true. You need to greatly oversize your panels (≥6x) and also have a passive house with a huge storage buffer (>5000 liters). In the summer you end up having to pump the waste heat into a pool. There are also maintenance costs. For PV you need huge amounts of battery storage. It's simply not economical above the 40° parallel to use solar for heating. For DHW or charging your EV it's okay, but in the winter you'll get at most 1/6 the amount of heat or electricity that you get in the summer provided that the panels are not covered in snow.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  That would seem to be essentially agreeing with my point - there's enough insolation but it's not necessarily economical to capture it with home PV systems.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Coal has been at all time record highs the past couple of years (well before Russia Ukraine war), and it's not even close. Like 3x previous record highs and more like 6x usual prices. 10 years ago I was assured that coal was dead, killed by wind and solar, which were already cheaper than coal at $60/T, and falling. How is it possible then that 10 years on with all the vastly expanded and even cheaper and better renewables, that people are paying $430/T for coal? And it's not the remaining few legacy assets winding down as they compete for a dwindling supply of fuel, global coal production is rising, new coal power plants are being built. I've never heard any of these people go back and reflect on what they got wrong about their predictions about coal, what they missed and where their logic was flawed. What I do hear frequently though is "nuclear is dead, renewables are already cheaper"... I'm a little less open minded this time around.

cinntaile 4y ago
I think you're mixing things here. The western world, the part of the world that bet on renewables, has reduced their dependency on coal. For the rest of the world that is not the case. It's very easy and fast to build a coal plant and pretty much every country has access to the raw material (independency). For the most part you don't need a specialized workforce either, which you do need for nuclear. It's also not intermittent like solar and wind and the supply chains for solar and wind wouldn't have been able to keep up anyway.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  I don't think I'm mixing things up, I think you are. Coal extraction in the western world is making huge amounts of money and scaling up production, exactly the opposite of what the naysayers were incessantly parroting. Coal is no different than wind and solar in terms of accessibility of plant or product. Actually renewables are significantly easier to acquire and scale and deploy in many cases -- millions of people have solar panels on their houses for example. Private, as well as municipal or county level installations are common. As are much larger ones. > For the most part you don't need a specialized workforce either, which you do need for nuclear. You certainly do. You can't just throw a bunch of people from the street together and tell them to run a coal mine, supply line, and power plant. > It's also not intermittent like solar and wind and the supply chains for solar and wind wouldn't have been able to keep up anyway. Might be zeroing in on some of the problems...