5 ms·

One of the opponents in the article says nuclear power is not a silver bullet. But that argument only makes sense if people are advocating nuclear power to the

One of the opponents in the article says nuclear power is not a silver bullet. But that argument only makes sense if people are advocating nuclear power to the exclusion of other techniques to deal with renewable generation being unavailable. Are there many nuclear power advocates who oppose grid upgrades or moving energy use toward times of day when renewables are generating a surplus?

elif 3y ago
I concur that nuclear is not a silver bullet for only one reason: overproduction. If we had enough nuclear capacity to support the peak grid, we would have a huge surplus for the remaining 80% of the day. In order for nuclear power to be a viable path toward decarbonization, it requires a coupling with: insanely large scale battery storage, global scale grid power redirection, a lot of dams which can act as peaker plants, a load generation which can scale with an economic model that makes sense (like server farms, crypto mines, etc which can be turned up or down on schedule) and/or an uninvented carbon-free peaker plant technology. Personally, I think nukes and batteries are the most straightforward and developed combination, but any combination could also be viable just with more research and development, and without an obvious economic model for them to work.
- andbberger 3y ago
  overproduction is a feature. plenty of useful things to do at night. synth fuels, carbon capture, desal. mostly synth fuels though.
  - elif 3y ago
    Those "neat things" are academic dreams not things which can roll off a 2023 assembly line with a clearly defined economic incentive. Battery coupling is as close as you can bring nukes to a silver bullet, but that is a huge project on its own.
  - waynecochran 3y ago
    Charge electric cars
  - donny2018 3y ago
    Isn't there a technology that makes fuels out of atmospheric carbon? That could use some of the overproduced cheap energy. Or use that energy to make hydrogen or what not. There are plenty of ways to use it indeed.

elif 3y ago

I concur that nuclear is not a silver bullet for only one reason: overproduction. If we had enough nuclear capacity to support the peak grid, we would have a huge surplus for the remaining 80% of the day. In order for nuclear power to be a viable path toward decarbonization, it requires a coupling with: insanely large scale battery storage, global scale grid power redirection, a lot of dams which can act as peaker plants, a load generation which can scale with an economic model that makes sense (like server farms, crypto mines, etc which can be turned up or down on schedule) and/or an uninvented carbon-free peaker plant technology. Personally, I think nukes and batteries are the most straightforward and developed combination, but any combination could also be viable just with more research and development, and without an obvious economic model for them to work.

andbberger 3y ago
overproduction is a feature. plenty of useful things to do at night. synth fuels, carbon capture, desal. mostly synth fuels though.
- elif 3y ago
  Those "neat things" are academic dreams not things which can roll off a 2023 assembly line with a clearly defined economic incentive. Battery coupling is as close as you can bring nukes to a silver bullet, but that is a huge project on its own.
- waynecochran 3y ago
  Charge electric cars
- donny2018 3y ago
  Isn't there a technology that makes fuels out of atmospheric carbon? That could use some of the overproduced cheap energy. Or use that energy to make hydrogen or what not. There are plenty of ways to use it indeed.