3 ms·

This shows why taking 15-20 years from decision to operational status, like nuclear power in the west does, is hugely risky. The world has moved past the need.

This shows why taking 15-20 years from decision to operational status, like nuclear power in the west does, is hugely risky. The world has moved past the need. Add on another 20-40 years to turn a profit and the prospects are laughable. > The output of Finland's newest nuclear power facility, Olkiluoto 3, has been significantly cut back because electricity has become too cheap, according to the plant's owner, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO). https://yle.fi/a/74-20032375 https://yle.fi/a/74-20032375

troupo 3y ago
> taking 15-20 years from decision to operational status, like nuclear power does, is hugely risky. It takes China 6 years to build a reactor, and they build them in parallel. > The world has moved past the need. Except when, you know, it's a quiet night
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  > It takes China 6 years to build a reactor, and they build them in parallel. China have a foot in the nuclear industry, but they are betting on renewables. Also, do you want to have a Chinese reactor in your backyard? Try the nimbyism for that! > Except when, you know, it's a quiet night The research is quite clear that designing a renewable energy system to handle nights is economical: > Much of the resistance towards 100% RE systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]– [282]; storage [40]– [43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]– [92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
  - troupo 3y ago
    [dead]
Hamuko 3y ago
Has the world moved past the need? Last summer, we were talking about the possibility of rolling blackouts during the winter. And while that was not necessary, a kilowatt-hour of electricity was tens of cents during the winter. I remember at least seeing 0.40€/kWh and it probably exceeded 0.50€ at points.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  Europe rebuilt the entire supply chain of fossil gas from the beginning of the invasion, while at the same time half the French nuclear reactors were out of commission. [1] If having a few expensive months is the worst outcome of the largest war since WW2 in Europe then the system is hugely resilient already. Those prices were imported to the Nordics, they did not stem from the Nordics. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
  - Gud 3y ago
    It was a remarkably warm winter.
- adrianN 3y ago
  If you could build a nuclear power plant as quickly as you can build a wind turbine you might still have a window where you could recoup the investment. Unfortunately building nuclear plants takes ages. If we started today to build the hundreds of nuclear power plants it would take Europe to go fully nuclear they wouldn't be done before renewables+storage ate their profit opportunity.

troupo 3y ago

> taking 15-20 years from decision to operational status, like nuclear power does, is hugely risky. It takes China 6 years to build a reactor, and they build them in parallel. > The world has moved past the need. Except when, you know, it's a quiet night

Gwypaas 3y ago
> It takes China 6 years to build a reactor, and they build them in parallel. China have a foot in the nuclear industry, but they are betting on renewables. Also, do you want to have a Chinese reactor in your backyard? Try the nimbyism for that! > Except when, you know, it's a quiet night The research is quite clear that designing a renewable energy system to handle nights is economical: > Much of the resistance towards 100% RE systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]– [282]; storage [40]– [43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]– [92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
- troupo 3y ago
  [dead]

Hamuko 3y ago

Has the world moved past the need? Last summer, we were talking about the possibility of rolling blackouts during the winter. And while that was not necessary, a kilowatt-hour of electricity was tens of cents during the winter. I remember at least seeing 0.40€/kWh and it probably exceeded 0.50€ at points.

Gwypaas 3y ago
Europe rebuilt the entire supply chain of fossil gas from the beginning of the invasion, while at the same time half the French nuclear reactors were out of commission. [1] If having a few expensive months is the worst outcome of the largest war since WW2 in Europe then the system is hugely resilient already. Those prices were imported to the Nordics, they did not stem from the Nordics. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
- Gud 3y ago
  It was a remarkably warm winter.
adrianN 3y ago
If you could build a nuclear power plant as quickly as you can build a wind turbine you might still have a window where you could recoup the investment. Unfortunately building nuclear plants takes ages. If we started today to build the hundreds of nuclear power plants it would take Europe to go fully nuclear they wouldn't be done before renewables+storage ate their profit opportunity.