5 ms·

I wouldn't put nuclear and renewables as opposed sides. The only reasonable future will be built for a minimum of 80%-90% of primary energy generated from renew

I wouldn't put nuclear and renewables as opposed sides. The only reasonable future will be built for a minimum of 80%-90% of primary energy generated from renewbles, and it may be that 10%-20% of nuclear is cheaper than to do it all by renewables. I don't understand why you say renewables will be too slow. I've only done napkin math, but simple projection of continued growth of existing production capacity through, say, 2035, completely replaces all current electrical generation, as well as other energy uses. And when you account for the much much higher efficient of electrification, meaning that we get 2-3x as much work out of the same amount of energy compared to all the waste with fossil fuels, we can fulfill the developing world's needs for growth too. But this is just my napkin math from taking production trends from top Google hits, it's not a sophisticated analysis. I would be interested to see one that is realistic, meaning that it doesn't assume that solar deployments plateau tomorrow.

nine_k 4y ago
Renewables and nuclear are of course not opposing each other; they are opposing fossil fuels. According to the article, the UK now has less electrical generation than it would like / planned to have. Partly because the nuclear power plants failed to go online at the planned time. Partly because the amount of renewable generation that has been built in the meantime is not sufficient ether, because renewables need to be seriously overpeovisioned, due to their varying output. Hence "both were too slow". Were they not, there'd be no energy deficit, I suppose.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  They are opposing each other because of the combination of two factors: * Peak energy demand happens when intermittent sources are at their lowest production [1]. * Nuclear power is as cheap to run at 100% capacity as it is to run at 50% or 25% capacity. If you build enough nuclear power to fulfill the peak demand when renewables aren't producing, then you've already built enough nuclear to power the grid all day. And since nuclear is just as cheap to run at 100% capacity there's no point in provisioning renewables. Renewables work well when paired with a dispatchable energy source like gas or hydroelectricity. The former emits carbon and the latter is geographically dependent. In areas without hydroelectric potential, nuclear is the only existing option for full decarbonization. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
  - nine_k 4y ago
    This is right, and again, I'm pretty pro-nuclear. The upside of solar generation is its potential for really rapid deployment, and for piecemeal deployment. I can't afford to have a personal nuclear reactor, but I likely would be able to adorn my house with some solar panels, some batteries, and maybe a heat pump to create ice during the day's heat peak and use it after dusk. When I'd be able to afford a house, that is %)
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Renewables don’t really oppose fossil fuels. Not to the same extent that nuclear does anyway. Nuclear can 100% replace all fossil fuels as a drop in. Renewables on their own can’t and need significant battery capacity as well to even out the load. Additionally, there are industrial use cases that need high temperature (like 300+ degrees C if my memory is correct). Nuclear power plants can generate this no problem because it’s a massive furnace already. Coal too. Solar and wind cannot. I strongly believe who think renewables can replace all carbon energy sources are not realistic about what is needed and don’t appreciate the nuance and just think of it as “energy source” rather than as part of a complete energy production / distribution problem.
  - samarthr1 4y ago
    A small nit, it _is possible_ to generate high temperatures reasonably efficiently using solar concentrators. In fact, it is used as a means for power generation already[1]. Oh, and if you are in a tropical area, you may also use solar concentrators for free-ish hot water (with an insulating tank), and get 24 hours hot water. However, if it was cloudy the day before, it will not be a great experience, and you may need to use amn electric heater. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating...
Manuel_D 4y ago
80-90% of energy generated from intermittent source would require immense amounts of storage to even out intermittency. If a silver bullet like hydrogen or compressed air solves storage, this may be feasible. But that's a big if. If fusion becomes viable could it be a viable primary energy source? Sure. But societies aren't going to bet the future of the energy industry on an if.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Every model I have seen shows 80%-90% renewables with almost no storage. Where are you getting your estimates? Fusion is not a realistic power source for decades, and there's no reason to think it will be cheaper than fission, or that it could ever be cheaper than massive amounts of storage.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Demand for storage varies greatly depending on overproduction, geography, and willingness to continue using fossil fuels. Plans for an 80% renewable grid in the he US are estimated at 12 hours of storage and "just" 3 weeks of storage. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... The problem is, even 12 hours of storage is a prohibitively large amount. The US uses 12,000 GWh of electricity per day. 12 hours of storage is 6,000 GWh. The entire world produces 400 GWh of batteries each year. Most of it is going to EVs and electronics, not grid storage. Even if we stopped building EVs entirely and directed the world's supply of battery production to just America's grid storage needs were talking about a decade of production. And worse yet these batteries are good for a couple thousand cycles, and will have to be replaced after a few years of use. And even with this 6 terawatts of stotage, in the end we'll still have a fifth of our grid still dependent on fossil fuels. Again, this is why plans for a renewable grid assume some other form of energy storage will be orders of magnitude better than lithium batteries. That'd be great if hydrogen, molten sand, compressed air, or something else delivers. But that's a big if on which to gamble the energy grid, especially when alternative paths to decarbonization that we have more than half a century operating are within our reach.
- 4y ago

nine_k 4y ago

Renewables and nuclear are of course not opposing each other; they are opposing fossil fuels. According to the article, the UK now has less electrical generation than it would like / planned to have. Partly because the nuclear power plants failed to go online at the planned time. Partly because the amount of renewable generation that has been built in the meantime is not sufficient ether, because renewables need to be seriously overpeovisioned, due to their varying output. Hence "both were too slow". Were they not, there'd be no energy deficit, I suppose.

Manuel_D 4y ago
They are opposing each other because of the combination of two factors: * Peak energy demand happens when intermittent sources are at their lowest production [1]. * Nuclear power is as cheap to run at 100% capacity as it is to run at 50% or 25% capacity. If you build enough nuclear power to fulfill the peak demand when renewables aren't producing, then you've already built enough nuclear to power the grid all day. And since nuclear is just as cheap to run at 100% capacity there's no point in provisioning renewables. Renewables work well when paired with a dispatchable energy source like gas or hydroelectricity. The former emits carbon and the latter is geographically dependent. In areas without hydroelectric potential, nuclear is the only existing option for full decarbonization. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
- nine_k 4y ago
  This is right, and again, I'm pretty pro-nuclear. The upside of solar generation is its potential for really rapid deployment, and for piecemeal deployment. I can't afford to have a personal nuclear reactor, but I likely would be able to adorn my house with some solar panels, some batteries, and maybe a heat pump to create ice during the day's heat peak and use it after dusk. When I'd be able to afford a house, that is %)
vlovich123 4y ago
Renewables don’t really oppose fossil fuels. Not to the same extent that nuclear does anyway. Nuclear can 100% replace all fossil fuels as a drop in. Renewables on their own can’t and need significant battery capacity as well to even out the load. Additionally, there are industrial use cases that need high temperature (like 300+ degrees C if my memory is correct). Nuclear power plants can generate this no problem because it’s a massive furnace already. Coal too. Solar and wind cannot. I strongly believe who think renewables can replace all carbon energy sources are not realistic about what is needed and don’t appreciate the nuance and just think of it as “energy source” rather than as part of a complete energy production / distribution problem.
- samarthr1 4y ago
  A small nit, it _is possible_ to generate high temperatures reasonably efficiently using solar concentrators. In fact, it is used as a means for power generation already[1]. Oh, and if you are in a tropical area, you may also use solar concentrators for free-ish hot water (with an insulating tank), and get 24 hours hot water. However, if it was cloudy the day before, it will not be a great experience, and you may need to use amn electric heater. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating...

Manuel_D 4y ago

80-90% of energy generated from intermittent source would require immense amounts of storage to even out intermittency. If a silver bullet like hydrogen or compressed air solves storage, this may be feasible. But that's a big if. If fusion becomes viable could it be a viable primary energy source? Sure. But societies aren't going to bet the future of the energy industry on an if.

epistasis 4y ago
Every model I have seen shows 80%-90% renewables with almost no storage. Where are you getting your estimates? Fusion is not a realistic power source for decades, and there's no reason to think it will be cheaper than fission, or that it could ever be cheaper than massive amounts of storage.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Demand for storage varies greatly depending on overproduction, geography, and willingness to continue using fossil fuels. Plans for an 80% renewable grid in the he US are estimated at 12 hours of storage and "just" 3 weeks of storage. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... The problem is, even 12 hours of storage is a prohibitively large amount. The US uses 12,000 GWh of electricity per day. 12 hours of storage is 6,000 GWh. The entire world produces 400 GWh of batteries each year. Most of it is going to EVs and electronics, not grid storage. Even if we stopped building EVs entirely and directed the world's supply of battery production to just America's grid storage needs were talking about a decade of production. And worse yet these batteries are good for a couple thousand cycles, and will have to be replaced after a few years of use. And even with this 6 terawatts of stotage, in the end we'll still have a fifth of our grid still dependent on fossil fuels. Again, this is why plans for a renewable grid assume some other form of energy storage will be orders of magnitude better than lithium batteries. That'd be great if hydrogen, molten sand, compressed air, or something else delivers. But that's a big if on which to gamble the energy grid, especially when alternative paths to decarbonization that we have more than half a century operating are within our reach.
4y ago