8 ms·

Its all built on very old thinking. Nuclear may have been a good idea in the past, but with the rapid reduction of cost of renewable, especially solar, its no l

Its all built on very old thinking. Nuclear may have been a good idea in the past, but with the rapid reduction of cost of renewable, especially solar, its no longer worth considering. Building a plant takes a decade, and a decade from now the difference in cost will be even greater. Nuclear will look like huge waste of money then.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
The sun doesn't shine, especially at useful angles, enough and battery technology at scale isn't there. We absolutely need nuclear, essentially no matter the cost, assuming populations of certain countries don't want to use coal.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The overwhelming majority of utility scale storage will not be in batteries, so battery technology does not matter. The sun does, in fact, shine far, far more than enough.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
    Ok, I'll bite. What type of utility scale storage isn't a battery? The answer is, of course: any energy storage setup is a battery[1]. A more generous interpretation of your comment is that you meant won't be chemical batteries. In which case, I'll bite: what then? 1. Energy storage is the capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time[1] to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy production. A device that stores energy is generally called an accumulator or battery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Sweden generates 40% of the current power generation from hydro. Adapt that to be more flexible than baseload and Sweden has amazing capabilities to run an entire renewable grid mainly based on wind with a minimal amount of chemical short-term storage. There are few countries with better opportunities for renewables than Sweden.
      - sandos 4y ago
        We are in a good place, but our hydro is basically maxed out and can not support a future (with higher consumption) no-wind scenario during winter since it does not have enough power for that alone. Nuclear power is a good idea, but so is wind for Sweden. We already have a lot of wind but high pressure areas with little wind do exist, even in winter. Nuclear looks kind of good from that point of view, but I strongly feel that Sweden is way too small of an actor to buy reactors on her own, and should actually co-order reactors with other countries, getting the costs down (maybe not even costs, but risks. There have been a lots of bankrupted players in nuclear lately).
    - heartbreak 4y ago
      In the US we have utility scale pumped storage hydro power which is a non-chemical battery (assuming you’re referring to chemicals other than water).
      - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
        Pumped hydro only works in certain locations, almost all of which are already used, and any that remain are at the whim of environmental approval.
    - tored 4y ago
      Hydrogen. However electrolysis is still an immature technology and has massive energy losses in every step of the procedure. You can negate that somewhat if produce and store at the same location of the intended use, like providing electricity to a building with hydrogen tank, hydrogen that is generated by solar panels. However this is of course not enough to run industries with high electricity demand, what people tend to forget is that one factory (like melting of aluminum) can consume more electricity in one day than an entire city in a year. For that you need nuclear power or hydro.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Hydrolysis has had high losses until recently, but efficiency is now well over 90%. The remaining problem is building factories for electrolysis equipment. Building factories takes an appallingly long time. But the problem is only of time, not technical maturity.
    - beefield 4y ago
      As we are talking about Sweden, a relatively cold country, a big chunk of energy consumption is about heating. And heat is a form of energy that is much easier to storage than electricity. I very much assume that even seasonal storage of heat is becoming a big thing in coming years, dwarfing any chemical battery capacity whatsoever. After all, for that, in the most basic form, you need a big enough pool of water connected to electric grid with a resistor and to district heating system with a heat exchanger.
  - doikor 4y ago
    > The sun does, in fact, shine far, far more than enough. Not in northern Europe. For example at the southern most point of Finland there is 3 months in the year when solar produces less than 1% of its name plate capacity. It does get slightly better in the southern part of Sweden but still not that great. Around Mediterranean is where solar starts to get really good though the Africa side of it is even better.
r00fus 4y ago
Renewables don't give you baseload power. So renewables + nuclear is a good balance.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Renewables + storage will provide massively cheaper baseload power.
  - zkomp 4y ago
    Will not happen. ”green” energy is not green- it consume massive amount of resources, it is expensive, short lived, destabilize the grid. I’m super happy my country is finally waking up from the horrible green hypnosis.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      It doesn't matter if it consumes resources what matters is that it's less than what it replaces a.k.a. better for the environment. I see this manipulative arguement used all the time with lithium mining.
      - tored 4y ago
        How are going to mine resources that doesn’t exist? There is not enough of the metals needed to go full renewable.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        False. There is no shortage of any of the materials needed to go fully renewable.
        tored 4y ago
        It’s Time to Wake Up - The Currently Known Global Mineral Reserves Will Not Be Sufficient to Supply Enough Metals to Manufacture the Planned Non-fossil Fuel Industrial Systems https://www.gtk.fi/en/research/time-to-wake-up/ https://www.gtk.fi/en/research/time-to-wake-up/ "No matter what minerals will be needed, we will need large quantities of them as the renewable power sources like wind and solar, require extensive mineral resources to manufacture the infrastructure for fossil-free energy. And there is a challenge. Given the estimated required number of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) of different vehicle class, it is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage, in the global industrial ecosystem as it is today."
Roark66 4y ago
You realise we are talking about Sweden here, not a subsaharan country by any stretch. In general in Europe (especially in Northern Europe) all solar and wind capacity has to backed up by at least the same amount of quickly available online dependable capacity. In practice this means natural gas and diesel plants that are off, or coal/nuclear that is being diverted elsewhere when the sun shines/wind blows. The EU grid is pretty well interconnected so excess capacity is pretty easy to sell (up to a point). This is one of the reasons why renewables can be used as a large piece of the total supply. However, unless time comes when we can deploy multi TWh lithium energy storage (highly unlikely - just look at shortages required for electric cars) or we have grids that can send let's say entire country's worth of capacity from the coast of Norway to Greece on a moment's notice there is no way renewables will ever go beyond few tens of % at the extreme best as measured in proportion of energy actually delivered. The misinformation on the subject has been pushed very hard in recent years as it benefits many special interest groups. For example those articles we see sometimes about "German's entire electricity supply coming from renewables on a given day" or "40% of all electricity produced came from renewables in first half of a year" fail to mention Germany has Frances heavily nuclear backed supply on one side, its other neighbor's conventional (coal) supplies to lean on so we should really consider the entire system not cherry pick parts that fit our narrative. Am I against renewables? No, I've invested my own money this year into solar (before the war started so I didn't even know how electricity prices will spike) and I am a big proponent of its use where possible. Unfortunately our grid is not built in a way that allows everyone to have solar. At the same time we don't have enough lithium batteries to meet our transportation needs, so thinking we'll have enough for grid level storage is a pipe dream. People that are for off lining existing nuclear capacity really achieve only increased use of gas/diesel for energy production as well as diminish our industry's competitiveness in the world through extremely high energy costs. This will have zero impact on climate as China will pick up all the slack we leave regarding co2 emissions and some. In fact it may even be worse, because we could've built same products(steel concrete etc) with a mix of nuclear/renewables/small chunk of conventional generation while they mostly use dirty coal. All we'll achieve by this self industrial devolution is furthering our dependence on countries like China and Russia.
- quelsolaar 4y ago
enra 4y ago
During winter, when electricity needs are high, northern Europe maybe gets total of 0-6 hours of sunlight, and most of is not the optimal angle or intensity. It's also often overcast, so solar barely generates power. On the worst winter days, when its -5F, and the energy needs are the highest, there is also no wind. The Baltic Sea also freezes and there is barely any tidal movement. There isn't really a renewable that works for Northern European energy needs during winter. Hydro is the exception but it's geo based you can't build unlimited hydroplants and also during winter the water levels are not the highest.
- fyvhbhn 4y ago
  In Europe there is never no wind, and wind generates more power in the winter contrary to nuclear plants. You also don't need to build unlimited hydro plants.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

The sun doesn't shine, especially at useful angles, enough and battery technology at scale isn't there. We absolutely need nuclear, essentially no matter the cost, assuming populations of certain countries don't want to use coal.

ncmncm 4y ago
The overwhelming majority of utility scale storage will not be in batteries, so battery technology does not matter. The sun does, in fact, shine far, far more than enough.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  Ok, I'll bite. What type of utility scale storage isn't a battery? The answer is, of course: any energy storage setup is a battery[1]. A more generous interpretation of your comment is that you meant won't be chemical batteries. In which case, I'll bite: what then? 1. Energy storage is the capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time[1] to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy production. A device that stores energy is generally called an accumulator or battery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Sweden generates 40% of the current power generation from hydro. Adapt that to be more flexible than baseload and Sweden has amazing capabilities to run an entire renewable grid mainly based on wind with a minimal amount of chemical short-term storage. There are few countries with better opportunities for renewables than Sweden.
    - sandos 4y ago
      We are in a good place, but our hydro is basically maxed out and can not support a future (with higher consumption) no-wind scenario during winter since it does not have enough power for that alone. Nuclear power is a good idea, but so is wind for Sweden. We already have a lot of wind but high pressure areas with little wind do exist, even in winter. Nuclear looks kind of good from that point of view, but I strongly feel that Sweden is way too small of an actor to buy reactors on her own, and should actually co-order reactors with other countries, getting the costs down (maybe not even costs, but risks. There have been a lots of bankrupted players in nuclear lately).
  - heartbreak 4y ago
    In the US we have utility scale pumped storage hydro power which is a non-chemical battery (assuming you’re referring to chemicals other than water).
    - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
      Pumped hydro only works in certain locations, almost all of which are already used, and any that remain are at the whim of environmental approval.
  - tored 4y ago
    Hydrogen. However electrolysis is still an immature technology and has massive energy losses in every step of the procedure. You can negate that somewhat if produce and store at the same location of the intended use, like providing electricity to a building with hydrogen tank, hydrogen that is generated by solar panels. However this is of course not enough to run industries with high electricity demand, what people tend to forget is that one factory (like melting of aluminum) can consume more electricity in one day than an entire city in a year. For that you need nuclear power or hydro.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Hydrolysis has had high losses until recently, but efficiency is now well over 90%. The remaining problem is building factories for electrolysis equipment. Building factories takes an appallingly long time. But the problem is only of time, not technical maturity.
  - beefield 4y ago
    As we are talking about Sweden, a relatively cold country, a big chunk of energy consumption is about heating. And heat is a form of energy that is much easier to storage than electricity. I very much assume that even seasonal storage of heat is becoming a big thing in coming years, dwarfing any chemical battery capacity whatsoever. After all, for that, in the most basic form, you need a big enough pool of water connected to electric grid with a resistor and to district heating system with a heat exchanger.
- doikor 4y ago
  > The sun does, in fact, shine far, far more than enough. Not in northern Europe. For example at the southern most point of Finland there is 3 months in the year when solar produces less than 1% of its name plate capacity. It does get slightly better in the southern part of Sweden but still not that great. Around Mediterranean is where solar starts to get really good though the Africa side of it is even better.

r00fus 4y ago

Renewables don't give you baseload power. So renewables + nuclear is a good balance.

ncmncm 4y ago
Renewables + storage will provide massively cheaper baseload power.
- zkomp 4y ago
  Will not happen. ”green” energy is not green- it consume massive amount of resources, it is expensive, short lived, destabilize the grid. I’m super happy my country is finally waking up from the horrible green hypnosis.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    It doesn't matter if it consumes resources what matters is that it's less than what it replaces a.k.a. better for the environment. I see this manipulative arguement used all the time with lithium mining.
    - tored 4y ago
      How are going to mine resources that doesn’t exist? There is not enough of the metals needed to go full renewable.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        False. There is no shortage of any of the materials needed to go fully renewable.
        tored 4y ago
        It’s Time to Wake Up - The Currently Known Global Mineral Reserves Will Not Be Sufficient to Supply Enough Metals to Manufacture the Planned Non-fossil Fuel Industrial Systems https://www.gtk.fi/en/research/time-to-wake-up/ https://www.gtk.fi/en/research/time-to-wake-up/ "No matter what minerals will be needed, we will need large quantities of them as the renewable power sources like wind and solar, require extensive mineral resources to manufacture the infrastructure for fossil-free energy. And there is a challenge. Given the estimated required number of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) of different vehicle class, it is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage, in the global industrial ecosystem as it is today."

Roark66 4y ago

You realise we are talking about Sweden here, not a subsaharan country by any stretch. In general in Europe (especially in Northern Europe) all solar and wind capacity has to backed up by at least the same amount of quickly available online dependable capacity. In practice this means natural gas and diesel plants that are off, or coal/nuclear that is being diverted elsewhere when the sun shines/wind blows. The EU grid is pretty well interconnected so excess capacity is pretty easy to sell (up to a point). This is one of the reasons why renewables can be used as a large piece of the total supply. However, unless time comes when we can deploy multi TWh lithium energy storage (highly unlikely - just look at shortages required for electric cars) or we have grids that can send let's say entire country's worth of capacity from the coast of Norway to Greece on a moment's notice there is no way renewables will ever go beyond few tens of % at the extreme best as measured in proportion of energy actually delivered. The misinformation on the subject has been pushed very hard in recent years as it benefits many special interest groups. For example those articles we see sometimes about "German's entire electricity supply coming from renewables on a given day" or "40% of all electricity produced came from renewables in first half of a year" fail to mention Germany has Frances heavily nuclear backed supply on one side, its other neighbor's conventional (coal) supplies to lean on so we should really consider the entire system not cherry pick parts that fit our narrative. Am I against renewables? No, I've invested my own money this year into solar (before the war started so I didn't even know how electricity prices will spike) and I am a big proponent of its use where possible. Unfortunately our grid is not built in a way that allows everyone to have solar. At the same time we don't have enough lithium batteries to meet our transportation needs, so thinking we'll have enough for grid level storage is a pipe dream. People that are for off lining existing nuclear capacity really achieve only increased use of gas/diesel for energy production as well as diminish our industry's competitiveness in the world through extremely high energy costs. This will have zero impact on climate as China will pick up all the slack we leave regarding co2 emissions and some. In fact it may even be worse, because we could've built same products(steel concrete etc) with a mix of nuclear/renewables/small chunk of conventional generation while they mostly use dirty coal. All we'll achieve by this self industrial devolution is furthering our dependence on countries like China and Russia.

quelsolaar 4y ago

enra 4y ago

During winter, when electricity needs are high, northern Europe maybe gets total of 0-6 hours of sunlight, and most of is not the optimal angle or intensity. It's also often overcast, so solar barely generates power. On the worst winter days, when its -5F, and the energy needs are the highest, there is also no wind. The Baltic Sea also freezes and there is barely any tidal movement. There isn't really a renewable that works for Northern European energy needs during winter. Hydro is the exception but it's geo based you can't build unlimited hydroplants and also during winter the water levels are not the highest.

fyvhbhn 4y ago
In Europe there is never no wind, and wind generates more power in the winter contrary to nuclear plants. You also don't need to build unlimited hydro plants.