4 ms·

Renewables are great but they don't provide a good base capacity capability. That means you still need hydro, geothermal (both limited), coal, gas, oil or nucle

by epups 3y ago

Renewables are great but they don't provide a good base capacity capability. That means you still need hydro, geothermal (both limited), coal, gas, oil or nuclear in your grid, with enough capacity to provide energy in case it's not sunny or windy. Large scale storage using batteries is simply not feasible at this point, which is why nuclear is still a good bridge technology until we figure that out. Unfortunately your misconception is very popular, and I think a large part of why a lot of people don't support nuclear.

Gwypaas 3y ago
Of course they do. > Indian developer secures 300 MW renewables project with $0.050/kWh bid https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secures-300-mw-renewables-project-with-0-050-kwh-bid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secu... Nuclear costs $0.12 - $0.20/kWh in comparison. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
- epups 3y ago
  Sorry but your source is bad - no details whatsoever about which storage solution they are aiming for. Regardless, we know for a fact that not a single country has storage capabilities for even 1% of their energy needs. Lots of initiatives want to change that, such as the one you posted, but there is absolutely no large scale solution for this issue at all. Once you accept that fact, you realize renewables are not a replacement for nuclear at this point.
- concordDance 3y ago
  I greatly appreciate your second link and will have a look at it later. I'm very curious how they got such a high figure for the nuclear cost given a look at even more expensive modern nuclear reactors costs gives a number of around $0.07/kWh.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    The manufacturers say they are cheap, well 0.07/kWh is super expensive, but in your reality yes, cheap, before starting to build. Then reality hits. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...
    - concordDance 3y ago
      The $0.07/kWh is for recently completed plants. The industry estimates they publish for new plants are more like $0.03/kWh. You appear to be employing rhetoric a lot more than hard numbers. If you want a productive discussion I recommend sticking to the latter.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        $0.07/kWh is not even close to reality in the west. $0.12 - 0.2/kWh is the reality. This is whole sale prices, so you can not compare it to your power bill. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... Like Hinkley Point C clocking in at a fair $0.16/kWh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... I think you is the one blinded by the industries promises rather than the reality it produces. Take IEA and their special report on Nuclear power. They generally are super conservative and in favor of traditional methods. > As an established large-scale low emissions energy source, nuclear is well placed to help decarbonise electricity supply. In the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE), energy sector emissions fall by about 40% from 2020 to 2030, and then decline to zero on a net basis by 2050. While renewable sources dominate and rise to nearly 90% of electricity supply in the NZE, nuclear energy plays a significant role. This narrow but achievable pathway requires rigorous and immediate policy action by governments around the world to reshape energy systems on many fronts. > Nuclear has to up its game in order to play its part > The industry has to deliver projects on time and on budget to fulfil its role. This means completing nuclear projects in advanced economies at around USD 5 000/kW by 2030, compared with the reported capital costs of around USD 9 000/kW (excluding financing costs) for first-of-a kind projects. There are some proven methods to reduce costs including finalising designs before starting construction, sticking with the same design for subsequent units, and building multiple units at the same site. Stable regulatory frameworks throughout construction would also help avoid delays. Essentially - Nuclear as it exists today is dead, if it can get it costs down to less than half it may play a tiny role. https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-transitions/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-...
pfdietz 3y ago
Actually, no, you're the one stuck on a misconception. Renewables + storage can provide "synthetic baseload" at a cost that will likely be lower than nuclear in most places, especially for a new nuclear plant whose construction has not started yet (it will compete with renewables + storage of the future, since they are installed much faster and don't have to start now to be done at the same time.) An important reminder is to not use just batteries for storage. Many bogus attempts to show renewables can't do it assume batteries are used for long term storage. This is a technological strawman argument. Use e-fuels instead. With renewables and electrolysers crashing in price, green hydrogen will become remarkably cheap.
- epups 3y ago
  Can you point me to a country that can store even 1% of their energy needs currently? If not, you're talking about unproven technologies that may or may not fix this problem. I hope they do, but until then we are in a world where closing a nuclear plant means opening up a carbon-intensive one. Renewables are not currently a replacement for nuclear, and this is not a misconception, it is a fact.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Pretty much all of them? That's because they burn fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are also storage. There's no sense making a synthetic fuel for storage when you're still burning a natural fuel. Care to show me a country with a breeder-based nuclear cycle? Oh gosh, by your logic nuclear cannot use breeders, since it hasn't been done yet. I guess nuclear is ruled out so we're totally doomed. Fortunately, your logic is entirely specious.
    - epups 3y ago
      There is no easy way to economically produce a synthetic fuel at scale as you suggest. It is irrelevant whether breeder reactors work or not, I can point to dozens of countries with a significant impact of nuclear in their mix, but you cannot provide a single country that uses synthetic fuels or any other type of storage at scale (>0.1% would probably still be challenging). My logic is that we are currently shutting down or creating regulatory hurdles for the cleanest base load technology, which is proven safe and reliable, in favor of pipe dreams such as that renewables plus storage is all we need.

by epups 3y ago

Gwypaas 3y ago

Of course they do. > Indian developer secures 300 MW renewables project with $0.050/kWh bid https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secures-300-mw-renewables-project-with-0-050-kwh-bid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secu... Nuclear costs $0.12 - $0.20/kWh in comparison. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...

epups 3y ago
Sorry but your source is bad - no details whatsoever about which storage solution they are aiming for. Regardless, we know for a fact that not a single country has storage capabilities for even 1% of their energy needs. Lots of initiatives want to change that, such as the one you posted, but there is absolutely no large scale solution for this issue at all. Once you accept that fact, you realize renewables are not a replacement for nuclear at this point.
concordDance 3y ago
I greatly appreciate your second link and will have a look at it later. I'm very curious how they got such a high figure for the nuclear cost given a look at even more expensive modern nuclear reactors costs gives a number of around $0.07/kWh.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  The manufacturers say they are cheap, well 0.07/kWh is super expensive, but in your reality yes, cheap, before starting to build. Then reality hits. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...
  - concordDance 3y ago
    The $0.07/kWh is for recently completed plants. The industry estimates they publish for new plants are more like $0.03/kWh. You appear to be employing rhetoric a lot more than hard numbers. If you want a productive discussion I recommend sticking to the latter.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      $0.07/kWh is not even close to reality in the west. $0.12 - 0.2/kWh is the reality. This is whole sale prices, so you can not compare it to your power bill. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... Like Hinkley Point C clocking in at a fair $0.16/kWh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... I think you is the one blinded by the industries promises rather than the reality it produces. Take IEA and their special report on Nuclear power. They generally are super conservative and in favor of traditional methods. > As an established large-scale low emissions energy source, nuclear is well placed to help decarbonise electricity supply. In the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE), energy sector emissions fall by about 40% from 2020 to 2030, and then decline to zero on a net basis by 2050. While renewable sources dominate and rise to nearly 90% of electricity supply in the NZE, nuclear energy plays a significant role. This narrow but achievable pathway requires rigorous and immediate policy action by governments around the world to reshape energy systems on many fronts. > Nuclear has to up its game in order to play its part > The industry has to deliver projects on time and on budget to fulfil its role. This means completing nuclear projects in advanced economies at around USD 5 000/kW by 2030, compared with the reported capital costs of around USD 9 000/kW (excluding financing costs) for first-of-a kind projects. There are some proven methods to reduce costs including finalising designs before starting construction, sticking with the same design for subsequent units, and building multiple units at the same site. Stable regulatory frameworks throughout construction would also help avoid delays. Essentially - Nuclear as it exists today is dead, if it can get it costs down to less than half it may play a tiny role. https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-transitions/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-...

pfdietz 3y ago

Actually, no, you're the one stuck on a misconception. Renewables + storage can provide "synthetic baseload" at a cost that will likely be lower than nuclear in most places, especially for a new nuclear plant whose construction has not started yet (it will compete with renewables + storage of the future, since they are installed much faster and don't have to start now to be done at the same time.) An important reminder is to not use just batteries for storage. Many bogus attempts to show renewables can't do it assume batteries are used for long term storage. This is a technological strawman argument. Use e-fuels instead. With renewables and electrolysers crashing in price, green hydrogen will become remarkably cheap.

epups 3y ago
Can you point me to a country that can store even 1% of their energy needs currently? If not, you're talking about unproven technologies that may or may not fix this problem. I hope they do, but until then we are in a world where closing a nuclear plant means opening up a carbon-intensive one. Renewables are not currently a replacement for nuclear, and this is not a misconception, it is a fact.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Pretty much all of them? That's because they burn fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are also storage. There's no sense making a synthetic fuel for storage when you're still burning a natural fuel. Care to show me a country with a breeder-based nuclear cycle? Oh gosh, by your logic nuclear cannot use breeders, since it hasn't been done yet. I guess nuclear is ruled out so we're totally doomed. Fortunately, your logic is entirely specious.
  - epups 3y ago
    There is no easy way to economically produce a synthetic fuel at scale as you suggest. It is irrelevant whether breeder reactors work or not, I can point to dozens of countries with a significant impact of nuclear in their mix, but you cannot provide a single country that uses synthetic fuels or any other type of storage at scale (>0.1% would probably still be challenging). My logic is that we are currently shutting down or creating regulatory hurdles for the cleanest base load technology, which is proven safe and reliable, in favor of pipe dreams such as that renewables plus storage is all we need.