3 ms·

Civilian nuclear power help share costs with the nuclear military industrial complex (e.g. Russia, France, UK, USA) and it's useful for countries that have a cl

by pydry 3y ago

Civilian nuclear power help share costs with the nuclear military industrial complex (e.g. Russia, France, UK, USA) and it's useful for countries that have a clear and pressing desire to be able to develop a nuclear bomb in a hurry (Sweden, South Korea, Japan), but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive than solar/wind paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage (studies prove that unlike the river dams it is often confused with, geography for pumped storage is plentiful)). Meanwhile tariffs like https://octopus.energy/agile/ https://octopus.energy/agile/ reduces the need for that storage for easily shiftable demand sources like heaters/electric car batteries [edit in response to coldpie]. Pairing it with non-green gas is cheaper still, even in spite of the war. If up-front cost is your only concern, gas+solar+wind wins on all fronts. It also takes ~20 years to build a nuclear plant, while new solar capacity can start taking meaty chunks out of current gas usage after 12 months. Given that western countries are between 40-60% gas powered these days and we don't have 20 years to avoid climate catastrophe, it leaves only two obvious choices of power source to decarbonize quickly - solar + wind.

tigroferoce 3y ago
Cost and time are a big part, but not the only part. A real question is whether we can do with REN alone or not. If we can, good, let’s do it. If we can’t, then we must find something else, regardless of costs. And by “do it” I mean electrify as much as possible (transports, heating, industries where possible) and compensate where we can’t (airplane, agriculture, cement). Are we positive that we can make it? And what happens if we can’t? Should plan for the unhappy scenario too?
michael1999 3y ago
That was always the killer for CANDU. If industry has to carry the whole cost of research, education, regulation, and training operators, our market is too small to support it. And the big buyers all have their own (weapon program adjacent) programs. We might have a renaissance with SMRs, but we’ll be contributors, not independents.
coldpie 3y ago
> paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage). I'm skeptical that these can actually scale to the required level to provide baseload when renewables are unavailable. Don't forget to include EVs and electric heating, which we don't have in massive quantities today but will need to have in short order. (To be ultra-clear: I would never argue against more renewable deployments. Yes, more renewables, always more. But I think not building nuclear, right now, is a big mistake.)
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Why are you skeptical? A blanket statement without an argument to back it up is not addressable or useful.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    Because they've never been deployed at the scale we're talking about. They're unproven. Hydrogen is inefficient to make and hard to store safely; current battery tech isn't efficient enough and has resource limitations; pumped hydro requires certain relatively rare combinations of geographic properties. Are those solvable problems? Probably, hopefully, some day. Meanwhile, nuclear works right now and is well understood.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Those are vague, nebulous, handwavy arguments. Some (like the inefficiency of hydrogen) are dog whistles that fall apart on close examination of the applications for which hydrogen would be suitable. The geography for OFF RIVER pumped hydro is not rare at all; it's present basically anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief (feasible even in deserts), in enormous amounts. The generic problem with "it can't be done" arguments is you are claiming all possible ways of solving a problem don't work. This is a very strong claim, and is not backed up by such vague arguments.
      - coldpie 3y ago
ftth_finland 3y ago
> but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. We just put a new nuclear power plant into service in Finland. > Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive than solar/wind paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage). Do you have any sources to back up these figures? I’m genuinely interested. How is hydrogen a viable storage form when you cannot burn 100% hydrogen and fuel cell aren’t available or cost effective at utility scale? How are batteries a viable storage form when there isn’t enough global manufacturing capacity to store energy at scale? How is pumped hydro a viable storage form when you are limited by geography and can’t really build any more?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  In fairness, in a renewably powered world Finland is going to be a really bad place to be. It's one of the worst places for energy (I'd call it the energy butthole of that world but I'll reserve that label for Russia). Solar is seasonal and wind is relatively sparse there. What this means is you're going to lose your heavy energy intensive industry. Going with nuclear won't save you from that, if you're then competing with industry in places where solar is available all year at costs likely to be below $0.01/kWh.
- pydry 3y ago
  >Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. Not really. Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again (10x solar's LCOE). Theres a reason only France tried that - and that is strongly related to the reason why Areva went spectacularly bankrupt. Theres no reality in which it makes any economic sense except #1 providing military support or #2 a pretend reality where all available storage options are economically infeasible. I have to say that an ignorant #2 is a pretty anti-climate position to take.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago

by pydry 3y ago

tigroferoce 3y ago

Cost and time are a big part, but not the only part. A real question is whether we can do with REN alone or not. If we can, good, let’s do it. If we can’t, then we must find something else, regardless of costs. And by “do it” I mean electrify as much as possible (transports, heating, industries where possible) and compensate where we can’t (airplane, agriculture, cement). Are we positive that we can make it? And what happens if we can’t? Should plan for the unhappy scenario too?

michael1999 3y ago

That was always the killer for CANDU. If industry has to carry the whole cost of research, education, regulation, and training operators, our market is too small to support it. And the big buyers all have their own (weapon program adjacent) programs. We might have a renaissance with SMRs, but we’ll be contributors, not independents.

coldpie 3y ago

> paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage). I'm skeptical that these can actually scale to the required level to provide baseload when renewables are unavailable. Don't forget to include EVs and electric heating, which we don't have in massive quantities today but will need to have in short order. (To be ultra-clear: I would never argue against more renewable deployments. Yes, more renewables, always more. But I think not building nuclear, right now, is a big mistake.)

pfdietz 3y ago
Why are you skeptical? A blanket statement without an argument to back it up is not addressable or useful.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Because they've never been deployed at the scale we're talking about. They're unproven. Hydrogen is inefficient to make and hard to store safely; current battery tech isn't efficient enough and has resource limitations; pumped hydro requires certain relatively rare combinations of geographic properties. Are those solvable problems? Probably, hopefully, some day. Meanwhile, nuclear works right now and is well understood.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Those are vague, nebulous, handwavy arguments. Some (like the inefficiency of hydrogen) are dog whistles that fall apart on close examination of the applications for which hydrogen would be suitable. The geography for OFF RIVER pumped hydro is not rare at all; it's present basically anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief (feasible even in deserts), in enormous amounts. The generic problem with "it can't be done" arguments is you are claiming all possible ways of solving a problem don't work. This is a very strong claim, and is not backed up by such vague arguments.
    - coldpie 3y ago

ftth_finland 3y ago

> but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. We just put a new nuclear power plant into service in Finland. > Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive than solar/wind paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage). Do you have any sources to back up these figures? I’m genuinely interested. How is hydrogen a viable storage form when you cannot burn 100% hydrogen and fuel cell aren’t available or cost effective at utility scale? How are batteries a viable storage form when there isn’t enough global manufacturing capacity to store energy at scale? How is pumped hydro a viable storage form when you are limited by geography and can’t really build any more?

pfdietz 3y ago
In fairness, in a renewably powered world Finland is going to be a really bad place to be. It's one of the worst places for energy (I'd call it the energy butthole of that world but I'll reserve that label for Russia). Solar is seasonal and wind is relatively sparse there. What this means is you're going to lose your heavy energy intensive industry. Going with nuclear won't save you from that, if you're then competing with industry in places where solar is available all year at costs likely to be below $0.01/kWh.
pydry 3y ago
>Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. Not really. Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again (10x solar's LCOE). Theres a reason only France tried that - and that is strongly related to the reason why Areva went spectacularly bankrupt. Theres no reality in which it makes any economic sense except #1 providing military support or #2 a pretend reality where all available storage options are economically infeasible. I have to say that an ignorant #2 is a pretty anti-climate position to take.
- ftth_finland 3y ago