4 ms·

The cost however remains remarkably high. A combination of renewables and giant piles of lithium is more expensive than nuclear, by quite a bit. [1] Anyways, t

The cost however remains remarkably high. A combination of renewables and giant piles of lithium is more expensive than nuclear, by quite a bit. [1] Anyways, the future is a mix of all sorts of things and this is a strict improvement so it's hard to be anything other than supportive. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-cost-for-a-renewable-grid https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-...

toomuchtodo 4y ago
You’re assuming long duration lithium storage vs excess renewables with curtailment. Australia is going 100% renewables at a reasonable cost with solar, wind, hydro, transmission, and some batteries. No nuclear is required to decarbonize. https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/engineering-framework-roadmap-to-100-per-cent-renewables https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/engineering-frame... https://aemo.com.au/initiatives/major-programs/engineering-framework https://aemo.com.au/initiatives/major-programs/engineering-f...
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I'm not actually making that assumption, I linked an article with the numbers as [1] in an edit to my initial reply. Nuclear is renewable :) [2] But yes, adjusting demand is far more efficient than adjusting supply. However it seems there's limited appetite. > No nuclear is required to decarbonize. No but it's less expensive, and better from a space utilization and environmental impact perspective. It's the best energy source we have. Safest, cleanest and lowest carbon. And most reliable. [1] Not perfect, but better than anything else we've got. [1] https://sustainablereview.com/nuclear-energy-is-better-than-solar-and-wind/ https://sustainablereview.com/nuclear-energy-is-better-than-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=395c964a159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
  - robbiep 4y ago
    I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Look at the recent andventures with Hinkley C. And that’s with an existing industrial base for nuclear power. 25 bn pounds is 45 billion AUD which is what previous governments paid to wire the whole country up with a patchwork of broadband (inflation unadjusted). And don’t say they small modular will step into the breach because it is not a proven technology and until the first 10 are deployed may never be. Australia has no nuclear knowledge base and would require a nationwide debate about getting into the nuclear power game so we would have at a minimum a 20 year lead time to build something. We could be totally decarbonised by that point and we wouldn’t even have a reactor online. As to your other points, have you seen how much space we have down here? Cramming a plant into a specific area is not a net benefit. We’ve got a geographically diverse population with a lot of empty space, it would be better to have more plants in more diversified locations. We will end up passing nuclear by, the economics and time lag just don’t stack up for us
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      > We will end up passing nuclear by, the economics and time lag just don’t stack up for us Again the economics are better than what is being done. However. > I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Ah yes just like JFK said about going to space. "We choose to decarbonize the grid with solar not because it is the best option, not because the cheapest option or even because it is hard - but because it is easy and politically expedient."
      - robbiep 4y ago
        You haven’t managed to make any strong assertions, just a smattering of pseudo-intellectualism. Thanks and good luck
    - andrewinardeer 4y ago
      You can politically thank The Greens for no nuclear power plants in Australia (apart from Lucas Heights, medical). Ironically, their 100% outright, non negotiable no nuclear policy has pushed heavy carbon emitting coal power plants for the last 30 years until the recent policy shift of winding them down in lieu of solar.
- asdefghyk 4y ago
  RE "...Australia is going 100% renewables at a reasonable cost with solar, wind, hydro, transmission, and some batteries....." The level of network supply reliability ( as in outages ) and the cost will be higher than the predicated "reasonable " in my opinion. Id like to know how several days of "overcast weather over extended areas " will be dealt with. Batteries are ok for short term storage .
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Hydro. Snowy 2 and Tasmania. Worst case, we’re still burning some small amount of fossil gas, or perhaps ammonia or hydrogen generated from renewables that would’ve otherwise been curtailed. Consider that enough energy falls on the Earth every ~60 minutes to power humanity for a year. We just need to continue to drive down renewables and storage costs. The world is already fusion capable, at a distance.
bsder 4y ago
It doesn't matter that nuclear is cheaper if you can't build a nuclear plant. The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution.
- erentz 4y ago
  > The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. These things aren't comparable without putting it together as a system. > A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. You're thinking about wild outliers there. It's around 6.5 years median [1]. [1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
  - gdy 4y ago
    Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Why would it?
      - gdy 4y ago
        Rosatom builds faster than South Korea, which takes 9 years to build a reactor [0]. For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. The first reactor at the Akkuyu site in Turkey is going to be built in 6 years [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components-in-place-at-Akkuyu-1 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components...
xbmcuser 4y ago
That article is 4 years old the prices it assumes are more than what they actually are already. With large scale Sodium Ion battery production expected to start this year in China it will be interesting to see what profilates faster grid scale battery storage or home battery packs.
Robotbeat 4y ago
I mean, that points to a Joule article that says: “If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh.” (Ie from $20/kWh). In other words, the grid can easily go to 95% variable renewable using storage costs the same as what they are right now. I should point out even nuclear power tends to use fossil power for backup, and synthesizing hydrogen for industrial uses could also be used to provide that last 5% affordably. That’s why when you add hydrogen season storage (to lithium daily storage), renewables are very competitive with nuclear even at 100% bAsElOaD. See: https://model.energy https://model.energy for an illustration of this. But seriously, getting to even just 95% clean energy would be a massive win, and the most important thing is getting to 95% clean within 20 years, not 100% in 40. (Or actually, getting to 80% in 10 is even more important, and to do it in a way that doesn’t massively increase energy costs, because we also have to eliminate natural gas for heating and petroleum for transportation.) (And I’m a big proponent of nuclear, but you can just build renewable WAAAAY faster in 2023. And that’s what matters… well that and not prematurely decommissioning existing nuclear!)

toomuchtodo 4y ago

You’re assuming long duration lithium storage vs excess renewables with curtailment. Australia is going 100% renewables at a reasonable cost with solar, wind, hydro, transmission, and some batteries. No nuclear is required to decarbonize. https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/engineering-framework-roadmap-to-100-per-cent-renewables https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/engineering-frame... https://aemo.com.au/initiatives/major-programs/engineering-framework https://aemo.com.au/initiatives/major-programs/engineering-f...

arcticbull 4y ago
I'm not actually making that assumption, I linked an article with the numbers as [1] in an edit to my initial reply. Nuclear is renewable :) [2] But yes, adjusting demand is far more efficient than adjusting supply. However it seems there's limited appetite. > No nuclear is required to decarbonize. No but it's less expensive, and better from a space utilization and environmental impact perspective. It's the best energy source we have. Safest, cleanest and lowest carbon. And most reliable. [1] Not perfect, but better than anything else we've got. [1] https://sustainablereview.com/nuclear-energy-is-better-than-solar-and-wind/ https://sustainablereview.com/nuclear-energy-is-better-than-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=395c964a159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
- robbiep 4y ago
  I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Look at the recent andventures with Hinkley C. And that’s with an existing industrial base for nuclear power. 25 bn pounds is 45 billion AUD which is what previous governments paid to wire the whole country up with a patchwork of broadband (inflation unadjusted). And don’t say they small modular will step into the breach because it is not a proven technology and until the first 10 are deployed may never be. Australia has no nuclear knowledge base and would require a nationwide debate about getting into the nuclear power game so we would have at a minimum a 20 year lead time to build something. We could be totally decarbonised by that point and we wouldn’t even have a reactor online. As to your other points, have you seen how much space we have down here? Cramming a plant into a specific area is not a net benefit. We’ve got a geographically diverse population with a lot of empty space, it would be better to have more plants in more diversified locations. We will end up passing nuclear by, the economics and time lag just don’t stack up for us
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > We will end up passing nuclear by, the economics and time lag just don’t stack up for us Again the economics are better than what is being done. However. > I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Ah yes just like JFK said about going to space. "We choose to decarbonize the grid with solar not because it is the best option, not because the cheapest option or even because it is hard - but because it is easy and politically expedient."
    - robbiep 4y ago
      You haven’t managed to make any strong assertions, just a smattering of pseudo-intellectualism. Thanks and good luck
  - andrewinardeer 4y ago
    You can politically thank The Greens for no nuclear power plants in Australia (apart from Lucas Heights, medical). Ironically, their 100% outright, non negotiable no nuclear policy has pushed heavy carbon emitting coal power plants for the last 30 years until the recent policy shift of winding them down in lieu of solar.
asdefghyk 4y ago
RE "...Australia is going 100% renewables at a reasonable cost with solar, wind, hydro, transmission, and some batteries....." The level of network supply reliability ( as in outages ) and the cost will be higher than the predicated "reasonable " in my opinion. Id like to know how several days of "overcast weather over extended areas " will be dealt with. Batteries are ok for short term storage .
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Hydro. Snowy 2 and Tasmania. Worst case, we’re still burning some small amount of fossil gas, or perhaps ammonia or hydrogen generated from renewables that would’ve otherwise been curtailed. Consider that enough energy falls on the Earth every ~60 minutes to power humanity for a year. We just need to continue to drive down renewables and storage costs. The world is already fusion capable, at a distance.

bsder 4y ago

It doesn't matter that nuclear is cheaper if you can't build a nuclear plant. The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. Much like World War I strategies, a solution that nobody has the political will to implement isn't a solution.

erentz 4y ago
> The difference is that a lithium battery facility can be installed and functional in 12-24 months. These things aren't comparable without putting it together as a system. > A nuclear plant takes 12-24 years. You're thinking about wild outliers there. It's around 6.5 years median [1]. [1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
- gdy 4y ago
  Funny article. It talks about time to build nuclear reactors but never mentions Russia.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Why would it?
    - gdy 4y ago
      Rosatom builds faster than South Korea, which takes 9 years to build a reactor [0]. For example, the reactor in Belarus was built in 8 years[1]. The first reactor at the Akkuyu site in Turkey is going to be built in 6 years [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components-in-place-at-Akkuyu-1 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Major-components...

xbmcuser 4y ago

That article is 4 years old the prices it assumes are more than what they actually are already. With large scale Sodium Ion battery production expected to start this year in China it will be interesting to see what profilates faster grid scale battery storage or home battery packs.

Robotbeat 4y ago

I mean, that points to a Joule article that says: “If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh.” (Ie from $20/kWh). In other words, the grid can easily go to 95% variable renewable using storage costs the same as what they are right now. I should point out even nuclear power tends to use fossil power for backup, and synthesizing hydrogen for industrial uses could also be used to provide that last 5% affordably. That’s why when you add hydrogen season storage (to lithium daily storage), renewables are very competitive with nuclear even at 100% bAsElOaD. See: https://model.energy https://model.energy for an illustration of this. But seriously, getting to even just 95% clean energy would be a massive win, and the most important thing is getting to 95% clean within 20 years, not 100% in 40. (Or actually, getting to 80% in 10 is even more important, and to do it in a way that doesn’t massively increase energy costs, because we also have to eliminate natural gas for heating and petroleum for transportation.) (And I’m a big proponent of nuclear, but you can just build renewable WAAAAY faster in 2023. And that’s what matters… well that and not prematurely decommissioning existing nuclear!)