4 ms·

So you propose having nuclear plants in standby? Then I have a bridge to sell you.

belorn 4y ago
Of course not, but is that question even asked in good faith? Are you not aware that the European grid is made out of multiple different technologies each with a different benefits and drawbacks? Right now the most important aspect of the grid is not price, it is the reduction of fossil fuel dependency. It is not sustainable to use fossil fuels in the short run and it is definitively not sustainable in the long run. Countries need to invest and start building replacement for existing fossil fuel power plants, and they also need at the same time increase capacity. On top of that we also need to start replace and remove part of the hydro energy production in order to prevent several extinctions. It is also not morally or economically sensible to continue spend subsidizes on fossil fuel plants. A minimum requirement for government subsidizes should be zero green house emissions and geopolitical self-sufficient within the borders of EU.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  The problem with nuclear is that every dollar spent on nuclear could have displaced more fossil energy if invested in renewables. Any investment in nuclear prolongs the climate crisis. The next problem nuclear faces is that the CAPEX heavy economic model requires them to run at 100% all the time, they used to be able to do that but renewables undercut them wildly. Now you start to lower the capacity factor of the nuclear plants, which has now gone from $0.15/kWh to ~$0.3/kWh when operating at 50% capacity factor. Who even wants electricity for that price? It's beyond what we today call an "energy crisis". This is locked in until that nuclear plant has paid of its initial investment after 40 years.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > The problem with nuclear is that every dollar spent on nuclear could have displaced more fossil energy if invested in renewables. Any investment in nuclear prolongs the climate crisis. Every dollar spent on nuclear, or every dollar spent on gratuitous nuclear regulation? Renewables kill many more people and render far more land uninhabitable per kWh generated; if we normalized our safety requirements then we'd turn off more coal more quickly by going to nuclear. Germany switched their policy away from nuclear and the result is they've spent more money (just look at the cost of the required grid upgrades alone from their renewable programme) and generated more CO2 (with coal plants being kept open past planned shutdowns, and in some cases even restarted). There's plenty of space for renewables in the mix, but opposing nuclear doesn't mean more money gets spent on renewables and certainly doesn't mean more emission reduction; quite the opposite.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      > Every dollar spent on nuclear, or every dollar spent on gratuitous nuclear regulation? Renewables kill many more people and render far more land uninhabitable per kWh generated; if we normalized our safety requirements then we'd turn off more coal more quickly by going to nuclear. Ehh what. None of this is true. > Germany switched their policy away from nuclear and the result is they've spent more money (just look at the cost of the required grid upgrades alone from their renewable programme) and generated more CO2 (with coal plants being kept open past planned shutdowns, and in some cases even restarted). The great thing is that we are in 2023 and not 15 years ago. Germany spearheaded the renewable transition with the subsidies and huge buildout they enabled. Today we can utilize the fruits of that. We make choices based on the options today, not past results. > There's plenty of space for renewables in the mix, but opposing nuclear doesn't mean more money gets spent on renewables and certainly doesn't mean more emission reduction; quite the opposite. Then the money gets spent on other economic activity, rather than siphoning state subsidies to a pet nuclear project.
  - belorn 4y ago
    The market should deploy the cheapest grid possible that can produce emission free energy. We should be using those market forces. The problem that we have is that governments steps in to subsidize grid stability. Industries and citizens in general do no accept a government that allows for black outs, and they also do not accept a government that allow the energy price to reach the natural market price when supply is very low and demand is high. A second major problem is that if cheap renewables can produce 90% of supply and we need to 10% of expensive storage to meet demand, the cost that customers will have to bear is as if 100% of the produced energy came from the expensive storage. This make it very expensive to customers to have a combination of very cheap and very expensive energy production. And finally, EU law dictate that if a country has surplus energy production then they must sell it to countries that has a deficit in energy production. This makes grid stability an EU wide issue, and even if a single country has an very stable production they will still share the high costs of energy unstable countries. All of it create a market where the cost of $/kWh of energy created within a country is just loosely connected by the real price that customers pay. This winter demonstrated that multiple times, and all the governments subsidizes and price roofs illustrated how ready governments are to pay when the real cost of grid stability lands.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      We are. Marginal cost + paying for CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... You are missing the time factor. Supplying 90% means that a vast majority of time they fulfill 100% and the expensive storage is not required. All based on the marginal price market Europe employs. The storage would still be needed, but it is not the marginal cost and maybe storage is not the right path? Maybe it is sector coupling? Maybe it is demand response from hydrogen production for industrial use? Maybe it is not charging most cars for a couple of days? As with all capitalistic systems a holistic organic approach will emerge. If it is not good enough adjust the market conditions. Sweden is already putting most stabilization services on an open market, with the goal to trade all day-ahead like power. Pulling out a five-year plan of having nuclear solve it in 20 years will only lead to pain.
      - 4y ago
cbmuser 4y ago
No, decarbonize the grid the way France did it. Don’t follow Germany’s example. It’s that simple.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  The French example is amazing. A bunch of negative learning by doing and then the total boondoggle of Flamanville 3. Lets emulate. Have a look at this crudely drawn graph to see the nuclear French cost over time with Flamanville 3 added as a cherry on top: https://imgur.com/6G2RBa0 https://imgur.com/6G2RBa0 On the other hand Germany has gone from about zero to 50% renewables while spearheading the renewable market. Sure, personally I would prefer if they had closed fossil generation before nuclear, but Fukushima threw a wrench in that plan. To not utilize the fruits of Germany's efforts today would be insane. We are making decisions 2023, not 2005.
  - kgabis 4y ago
    What fruits? German co2 emissions per capital are similar to coal heavy Poland. Energiewende is a massive failure and a great example of politics screwing people and environment over.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Which is amazing considering that Germany has 2.8x the GDP per capita of Poland. As I said, I do not agree with phasing out nuclear before renewables. Short of that transforming the electricity sector of Germany from all fossil and some nuclear to 50% renewables in 15 years is nothing short of incredible. Add the current exponential growth in renewables to that, now when the cost side does not require subsidies anymore, and we have an incredible future ahead of us. Or as wiki puts it, they choose after Fukushima to not use nuclear as a bridging technology. > The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident.[1] Legislative support was passed in September 2010. On 6 June 2011, following Fukushima, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status

Of course not, but is that question even asked in good faith? Are you not aware that the European grid is made out of multiple different technologies each with a different benefits and drawbacks? Right now the most important aspect of the grid is not price, it is the reduction of fossil fuel dependency. It is not sustainable to use fossil fuels in the short run and it is definitively not sustainable in the long run. Countries need to invest and start building replacement for existing fossil fuel power plants, and they also need at the same time increase capacity. On top of that we also need to start replace and remove part of the hydro energy production in order to prevent several extinctions. It is also not morally or economically sensible to continue spend subsidizes on fossil fuel plants. A minimum requirement for government subsidizes should be zero green house emissions and geopolitical self-sufficient within the borders of EU.

Gwypaas 4y ago
The problem with nuclear is that every dollar spent on nuclear could have displaced more fossil energy if invested in renewables. Any investment in nuclear prolongs the climate crisis. The next problem nuclear faces is that the CAPEX heavy economic model requires them to run at 100% all the time, they used to be able to do that but renewables undercut them wildly. Now you start to lower the capacity factor of the nuclear plants, which has now gone from $0.15/kWh to ~$0.3/kWh when operating at 50% capacity factor. Who even wants electricity for that price? It's beyond what we today call an "energy crisis". This is locked in until that nuclear plant has paid of its initial investment after 40 years.
- lmm 4y ago
  > The problem with nuclear is that every dollar spent on nuclear could have displaced more fossil energy if invested in renewables. Any investment in nuclear prolongs the climate crisis. Every dollar spent on nuclear, or every dollar spent on gratuitous nuclear regulation? Renewables kill many more people and render far more land uninhabitable per kWh generated; if we normalized our safety requirements then we'd turn off more coal more quickly by going to nuclear. Germany switched their policy away from nuclear and the result is they've spent more money (just look at the cost of the required grid upgrades alone from their renewable programme) and generated more CO2 (with coal plants being kept open past planned shutdowns, and in some cases even restarted). There's plenty of space for renewables in the mix, but opposing nuclear doesn't mean more money gets spent on renewables and certainly doesn't mean more emission reduction; quite the opposite.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    > Every dollar spent on nuclear, or every dollar spent on gratuitous nuclear regulation? Renewables kill many more people and render far more land uninhabitable per kWh generated; if we normalized our safety requirements then we'd turn off more coal more quickly by going to nuclear. Ehh what. None of this is true. > Germany switched their policy away from nuclear and the result is they've spent more money (just look at the cost of the required grid upgrades alone from their renewable programme) and generated more CO2 (with coal plants being kept open past planned shutdowns, and in some cases even restarted). The great thing is that we are in 2023 and not 15 years ago. Germany spearheaded the renewable transition with the subsidies and huge buildout they enabled. Today we can utilize the fruits of that. We make choices based on the options today, not past results. > There's plenty of space for renewables in the mix, but opposing nuclear doesn't mean more money gets spent on renewables and certainly doesn't mean more emission reduction; quite the opposite. Then the money gets spent on other economic activity, rather than siphoning state subsidies to a pet nuclear project.
- belorn 4y ago
  The market should deploy the cheapest grid possible that can produce emission free energy. We should be using those market forces. The problem that we have is that governments steps in to subsidize grid stability. Industries and citizens in general do no accept a government that allows for black outs, and they also do not accept a government that allow the energy price to reach the natural market price when supply is very low and demand is high. A second major problem is that if cheap renewables can produce 90% of supply and we need to 10% of expensive storage to meet demand, the cost that customers will have to bear is as if 100% of the produced energy came from the expensive storage. This make it very expensive to customers to have a combination of very cheap and very expensive energy production. And finally, EU law dictate that if a country has surplus energy production then they must sell it to countries that has a deficit in energy production. This makes grid stability an EU wide issue, and even if a single country has an very stable production they will still share the high costs of energy unstable countries. All of it create a market where the cost of $/kWh of energy created within a country is just loosely connected by the real price that customers pay. This winter demonstrated that multiple times, and all the governments subsidizes and price roofs illustrated how ready governments are to pay when the real cost of grid stability lands.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    We are. Marginal cost + paying for CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... You are missing the time factor. Supplying 90% means that a vast majority of time they fulfill 100% and the expensive storage is not required. All based on the marginal price market Europe employs. The storage would still be needed, but it is not the marginal cost and maybe storage is not the right path? Maybe it is sector coupling? Maybe it is demand response from hydrogen production for industrial use? Maybe it is not charging most cars for a couple of days? As with all capitalistic systems a holistic organic approach will emerge. If it is not good enough adjust the market conditions. Sweden is already putting most stabilization services on an open market, with the goal to trade all day-ahead like power. Pulling out a five-year plan of having nuclear solve it in 20 years will only lead to pain.
    - 4y ago

cbmuser 4y ago

No, decarbonize the grid the way France did it. Don’t follow Germany’s example. It’s that simple.

Gwypaas 4y ago
The French example is amazing. A bunch of negative learning by doing and then the total boondoggle of Flamanville 3. Lets emulate. Have a look at this crudely drawn graph to see the nuclear French cost over time with Flamanville 3 added as a cherry on top: https://imgur.com/6G2RBa0 https://imgur.com/6G2RBa0 On the other hand Germany has gone from about zero to 50% renewables while spearheading the renewable market. Sure, personally I would prefer if they had closed fossil generation before nuclear, but Fukushima threw a wrench in that plan. To not utilize the fruits of Germany's efforts today would be insane. We are making decisions 2023, not 2005.
- kgabis 4y ago
  What fruits? German co2 emissions per capital are similar to coal heavy Poland. Energiewende is a massive failure and a great example of politics screwing people and environment over.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Which is amazing considering that Germany has 2.8x the GDP per capita of Poland. As I said, I do not agree with phasing out nuclear before renewables. Short of that transforming the electricity sector of Germany from all fossil and some nuclear to 50% renewables in 15 years is nothing short of incredible. Add the current exponential growth in renewables to that, now when the cost side does not require subsidies anymore, and we have an incredible future ahead of us. Or as wiki puts it, they choose after Fukushima to not use nuclear as a bridging technology. > The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident.[1] Legislative support was passed in September 2010. On 6 June 2011, following Fukushima, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status