5 ms·

Yeah it’s the long production time for nuclear that makes a big difference. Solar/wind/storage can roll out today and start producing energy tomorrow. We’d have

Yeah it’s the long production time for nuclear that makes a big difference. Solar/wind/storage can roll out today and start producing energy tomorrow. We’d have 16 years to match the scale required which I think would only be a challenge for storage (wind and solar seem relatively simple to scale). In that time we can immediately begin producing clean power at least during the day, supplementing clean power for dirty at night for 5-10 years until more storage is available. This seems better than continuing with dirty power for 16 years until nuclear comes online. We are, generally, pretty screwed though yes.

k__ 4y ago
"Solar/wind/storage can roll out today and start ... producing clean power at least during the day" Why only during the day?
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I meant worst case, if sufficient scale for batteries is not immediately available, you’re still going to get lots of green power most days. Of course with wind you’d prob get power at night too. Either way the immediacy of this roll out is better than waiting 10-15 years for a nuclear plant to come online, even if storage takes a few years to fully meet demand.
  - k__ 4y ago
    Ah, okay. Yes, I always had the impression nuclear proponents vastly underestimate the time and work such a plant takes.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    It is foolish to build storage before there is renewable generating capacity to charge it from. So, everybody builds generating capacity first. Storage cost is falling even faster than renewable generation did.
zbrozek 4y ago
Permitting is a huge problem for everything, including solar and wind. The transmission lines cross a bunch of jurisdictions and get NIMBY-ed to death. The generating facilities themselves also take a long time to get through the NIMBY process.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Unless a solar plant is built in a completely uninhabited place, could existing allocations / permits for local power distribution be reused to build a larger power line? I mean, there should already be a power distribution grid there, maybe just not powerful enough.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    I suspect a lot of that is what we've been building in the last 10 years, but that the low-hanging fruit is taken. Some next-level fruit is solar shade structures over parking lots at existing retail and office sites. Big wind projects have had issues reaching viability due to insufficiency of the transmission grid. T. Boone Pickens and the Texas Panhandle comes to mind.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      Agrivoltaics. 1. https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/growing-plants-power-and-partnerships.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/growing-plants-power-...
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  The thing about solar is this also includes distributed rooftop solar, which is probably easier to permit than one massive solar facility.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    Absolutely! And more people should have it (no matter what the IOUs are convincing the CPUC to do). But particularly for cities, there's too much demand relative to rooftop to reach self-sufficiency this way.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Right, but the point being it'll likely be at least a decade before a nuclear power plant started today actually gets completed anyway. And that's for one. Replacing any significant portion of the grid with nuclear would also take many years, most likely decades.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > During the day, in the summer, when it's not cloudy, perhaps. > You are aware that not every place in the world has the weather found in California, yes? Your info is sorely out of date. Modern solar panels can operate in cloudy conditions. And they operate better when they are cool. The UK is installing solar all over the place. Solar panels operate on daylight, not direct sunlight. Cleve Hill solar farm in the UK was approved in 2020 and will generate 350MW. The idea that solar is only feasible is sunny climates is frankly absurd.
  - samatman 4y ago
    350MV is the nameplate capacity. To get the actual generated power, you must, tragically, multiply by the capacity factor. What's the capacity factor for Cleve Hill? We don't have to guess, it's in this document: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010085/EN010085-001047-11.4.10%20GREAT%20Need%20Response.pdf https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-conten... It's 10.8%. This is a 35MW plant. Oh, but it has batteries I hear you saying! Doesn't matter. It will generate 35MW-years per year. Batteries, at best, mean wasting less of it. Meanwhile, a 350MW nuclear plant has a capacity factor of 90%, most of the loss being conversion to AC, with a bit of downtime. So that would deliver 315MW-years of energy, per year.
dmitriid 4y ago
> Yeah it’s the long production time for nuclear that makes a big difference. Solar/wind/storage can roll out today and start producing energy tomorrow. Ah yes. The magical immediate construction of dollars and windows. Blink, and it's there. Wind and solar farms off similar capacity take about as much to complete as nuclear and often cost about as much. Many western countries haven't built a nuclear power plant in ages, and are only ramping up (against unending pushback). China takes about 2 years to build a reactor.

k__ 4y ago

"Solar/wind/storage can roll out today and start ... producing clean power at least during the day" Why only during the day?

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I meant worst case, if sufficient scale for batteries is not immediately available, you’re still going to get lots of green power most days. Of course with wind you’d prob get power at night too. Either way the immediacy of this roll out is better than waiting 10-15 years for a nuclear plant to come online, even if storage takes a few years to fully meet demand.
- k__ 4y ago
  Ah, okay. Yes, I always had the impression nuclear proponents vastly underestimate the time and work such a plant takes.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  It is foolish to build storage before there is renewable generating capacity to charge it from. So, everybody builds generating capacity first. Storage cost is falling even faster than renewable generation did.

zbrozek 4y ago

Permitting is a huge problem for everything, including solar and wind. The transmission lines cross a bunch of jurisdictions and get NIMBY-ed to death. The generating facilities themselves also take a long time to get through the NIMBY process.

nine_k 4y ago
Unless a solar plant is built in a completely uninhabited place, could existing allocations / permits for local power distribution be reused to build a larger power line? I mean, there should already be a power distribution grid there, maybe just not powerful enough.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  I suspect a lot of that is what we've been building in the last 10 years, but that the low-hanging fruit is taken. Some next-level fruit is solar shade structures over parking lots at existing retail and office sites. Big wind projects have had issues reaching viability due to insufficiency of the transmission grid. T. Boone Pickens and the Texas Panhandle comes to mind.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Agrivoltaics. 1. https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/growing-plants-power-and-partnerships.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/growing-plants-power-...
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
The thing about solar is this also includes distributed rooftop solar, which is probably easier to permit than one massive solar facility.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  Absolutely! And more people should have it (no matter what the IOUs are convincing the CPUC to do). But particularly for cities, there's too much demand relative to rooftop to reach self-sufficiency this way.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nicoburns 4y ago
Right, but the point being it'll likely be at least a decade before a nuclear power plant started today actually gets completed anyway. And that's for one. Replacing any significant portion of the grid with nuclear would also take many years, most likely decades.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tchaffee 4y ago
> During the day, in the summer, when it's not cloudy, perhaps. > You are aware that not every place in the world has the weather found in California, yes? Your info is sorely out of date. Modern solar panels can operate in cloudy conditions. And they operate better when they are cool. The UK is installing solar all over the place. Solar panels operate on daylight, not direct sunlight. Cleve Hill solar farm in the UK was approved in 2020 and will generate 350MW. The idea that solar is only feasible is sunny climates is frankly absurd.
- samatman 4y ago
  350MV is the nameplate capacity. To get the actual generated power, you must, tragically, multiply by the capacity factor. What's the capacity factor for Cleve Hill? We don't have to guess, it's in this document: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010085/EN010085-001047-11.4.10%20GREAT%20Need%20Response.pdf https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-conten... It's 10.8%. This is a 35MW plant. Oh, but it has batteries I hear you saying! Doesn't matter. It will generate 35MW-years per year. Batteries, at best, mean wasting less of it. Meanwhile, a 350MW nuclear plant has a capacity factor of 90%, most of the loss being conversion to AC, with a bit of downtime. So that would deliver 315MW-years of energy, per year.

dmitriid 4y ago

> Yeah it’s the long production time for nuclear that makes a big difference. Solar/wind/storage can roll out today and start producing energy tomorrow. Ah yes. The magical immediate construction of dollars and windows. Blink, and it's there. Wind and solar farms off similar capacity take about as much to complete as nuclear and often cost about as much. Many western countries haven't built a nuclear power plant in ages, and are only ramping up (against unending pushback). China takes about 2 years to build a reactor.