3 ms·

> I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite

> I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. See, there's a difference between scaling and scaling. It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. And yet, somehow, when we talk about scaling, it's suddenly "oh no, nuclear cannot scale to support the entire world, it's proof it cannot scale" when renewables can barely sustainably reach the existing scales. > I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. I will remind you that the original comment I was replying to was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 It was talking about storage solutions which are all but required for renewables. And literally none of those solutions have been proven to work at scale. Moreover, some of those solutions are at best theoretical. But sure, do tell me how it's not a strong argument? > limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all. Yes. There are "many storage solutions". Go ahead and show me those that work at scale. And literally no one was talking about the need or lack thereof of rare materials for that storage. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production and around 50GW net of new renewable production each year. The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. It is now limited by availabity of fuel and cannot grow without new technologies.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Didn't know we are living in 1985. > Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production 1. Are these batteries all used in grid energy storage, or are you taking the full output including things like batteries for remotes? 2. How many of those batteries are actually scalable solutions, deployed, and working. It's kinda funny how my opponents continuously try to steer away the conversation away from this. 3. Compare that to "nuclear power plants generate about a tenth of the world's electricity" which amounts to about 2 653 344 GWh [1] > The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. Storage solutions are not even remotely near nuclear. Without storage renewables have to be significantly overprovisioned to be used reliably. To repeat again. It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ? ---- Edit: don't bother. This discussion isn't in good faith, and being willingly derailed into discussing everything and anything other then the original statements I replied to. I'm not going to engage in this conversation further. ---- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Didn't know we are living in 1985. Well we can compare to new capacity added in 2021 if you like? There were 5GW added. There were enough batteries made in 2021 for a 50 hour storage for every nuclear plant that came online with plenty to spare. The point is that if renewables + batteries are not of sufficient scale, then nothing is. If the bar for pursuing a solution to a problem is that the problem already be solved, then noone will ever solve anything. Lithium battery production is much closer than the scale of nuclear construction ever was. Having a tantrum when this is pointed out doesn't change it.
pfdietz 4y ago
> It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. Do tell. Then how can it be that globally, in 2021, wind + solar delivered more energy to the grid than nuclear did? 10.31% of total world production vs. 9.94% for nuclear. Anyone with even a passable knowledge of how grids work, and who isn't stuck arguing in bad faith, would recognize that providing 10% of the grid requires no overprovisioning or storage whatsoever. It seems that this milestone that you claim is so impossible was already achieved.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  I love how consistently pro-nuclear talking points are actually arguments for renewables and against fission once you look at the numbers. The nuclear shills here have given me a lot more hope for a renewable future. Another fun scaling fact. Loading the 50 or so advanced nuclear reactors required to meet the scale of last year's renewables would require doubling world uranium output.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production and around 50GW net of new renewable production each year. The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. It is now limited by availabity of fuel and cannot grow without new technologies.

dmitriid 4y ago
> There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Didn't know we are living in 1985. > Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production 1. Are these batteries all used in grid energy storage, or are you taking the full output including things like batteries for remotes? 2. How many of those batteries are actually scalable solutions, deployed, and working. It's kinda funny how my opponents continuously try to steer away the conversation away from this. 3. Compare that to "nuclear power plants generate about a tenth of the world's electricity" which amounts to about 2 653 344 GWh [1] > The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. Storage solutions are not even remotely near nuclear. Without storage renewables have to be significantly overprovisioned to be used reliably. To repeat again. It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ? ---- Edit: don't bother. This discussion isn't in good faith, and being willingly derailed into discussing everything and anything other then the original statements I replied to. I'm not going to engage in this conversation further. ---- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Didn't know we are living in 1985. Well we can compare to new capacity added in 2021 if you like? There were 5GW added. There were enough batteries made in 2021 for a 50 hour storage for every nuclear plant that came online with plenty to spare. The point is that if renewables + batteries are not of sufficient scale, then nothing is. If the bar for pursuing a solution to a problem is that the problem already be solved, then noone will ever solve anything. Lithium battery production is much closer than the scale of nuclear construction ever was. Having a tantrum when this is pointed out doesn't change it.

pfdietz 4y ago

> It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. Do tell. Then how can it be that globally, in 2021, wind + solar delivered more energy to the grid than nuclear did? 10.31% of total world production vs. 9.94% for nuclear. Anyone with even a passable knowledge of how grids work, and who isn't stuck arguing in bad faith, would recognize that providing 10% of the grid requires no overprovisioning or storage whatsoever. It seems that this milestone that you claim is so impossible was already achieved.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
I love how consistently pro-nuclear talking points are actually arguments for renewables and against fission once you look at the numbers. The nuclear shills here have given me a lot more hope for a renewable future. Another fun scaling fact. Loading the 50 or so advanced nuclear reactors required to meet the scale of last year's renewables would require doubling world uranium output.