6 ms·

Your hanging everything on "24/7". Take a look at the numbers in the report for firming renewables and contrast them with nuclear.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Please note that I'm also including long-running (e.g. 60-80 years) and small-footprint (relatively few critical minerals [1] and acres of land needed [2], plus associated reduction in transmission over other options) alongside nuclear's fantastic ability to run 24/7, rain or shine, any season, anywhere (including deep underwater, under ice like at Camp Century, and in outer space like SNAP-10A). None of these benefits of nuclear are even remotely included in LCOE assessments. They're just cast aside as unimportant, which is a big LOL, and why LCOE is no longer seriously considered in cross-technology comparisons by energy experts. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in... [2] https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environment-systematic-survey.html https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environmen... (which is a write-up of https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9)
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Low land use requirements are unnecessary. We have an entire planet available for renewable generation, and the footprint needed is still relatively small. If land was at a premium, this would advantage nuclear. It isn’t, so this provides no economic benefit. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-power-how-much-land-must-renewables-use/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-p... https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it-require-to-get-most-of-our-electricity-from-wind-and-solar/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it... https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf (Page 30)
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Of course physically there is enough land. But NIMBYism is real and gets worse at scale. This is starting to drive costs and timelines up, and will be much worse at world scale. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmills-when-growth-hits-resistance https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmill...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nu... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w Everything the nuclear propaganda arm ever says is a lie.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    New reactors are widely expected last longer than old ones because of what we've learned from the experience. Materials have advanced. Welding is better understood. Stress corrosion cracking can be managed. Your links are backward looking. I'm talking about the future. Many license extensions out to 60 years have been made, and many to 80 are expected. Youre doing the equivalent of looking at 1960s era solar tech and saying people claiming it can improve are liars.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Not even slightly. Because most of the reactors that shut down at 0-30 years were claimed to last at least 40. Credulously believing the same lie again is just stupid. Especially when they are already uneconomic to run. All you are doing is wasting resources on stranded assets.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-licensed-for-80-year-operation https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-lice... https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/app... https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-license-renewal.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/f... https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-license-renewal https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-...
- adrianN 4y ago
  Land is pretty much irrelevant. If we used all the land we currently use to farm crops for ethanol and biodiesel for solar panels we would already have most of our energy needs covered.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

Please note that I'm also including long-running (e.g. 60-80 years) and small-footprint (relatively few critical minerals [1] and acres of land needed [2], plus associated reduction in transmission over other options) alongside nuclear's fantastic ability to run 24/7, rain or shine, any season, anywhere (including deep underwater, under ice like at Camp Century, and in outer space like SNAP-10A). None of these benefits of nuclear are even remotely included in LCOE assessments. They're just cast aside as unimportant, which is a big LOL, and why LCOE is no longer seriously considered in cross-technology comparisons by energy experts. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in... [2] https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environment-systematic-survey.html https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environmen... (which is a write-up of https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9)

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Low land use requirements are unnecessary. We have an entire planet available for renewable generation, and the footprint needed is still relatively small. If land was at a premium, this would advantage nuclear. It isn’t, so this provides no economic benefit. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-power-how-much-land-must-renewables-use/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-p... https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it-require-to-get-most-of-our-electricity-from-wind-and-solar/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it... https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf (Page 30)
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Of course physically there is enough land. But NIMBYism is real and gets worse at scale. This is starting to drive costs and timelines up, and will be much worse at world scale. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmills-when-growth-hits-resistance https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmill...
Schroedingersat 4y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nu... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w Everything the nuclear propaganda arm ever says is a lie.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  New reactors are widely expected last longer than old ones because of what we've learned from the experience. Materials have advanced. Welding is better understood. Stress corrosion cracking can be managed. Your links are backward looking. I'm talking about the future. Many license extensions out to 60 years have been made, and many to 80 are expected. Youre doing the equivalent of looking at 1960s era solar tech and saying people claiming it can improve are liars.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Not even slightly. Because most of the reactors that shut down at 0-30 years were claimed to last at least 40. Credulously believing the same lie again is just stupid. Especially when they are already uneconomic to run. All you are doing is wasting resources on stranded assets.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-licensed-for-80-year-operation https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-US-plant-lice... https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/app... https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-license-renewal.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/f... https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-license-renewal https://www.nei.org/advocacy/preserve-nuclear-plants/second-...
adrianN 4y ago
Land is pretty much irrelevant. If we used all the land we currently use to farm crops for ethanol and biodiesel for solar panels we would already have most of our energy needs covered.