4 ms·

There are lots of nuclear reactors being built world wide currently. The problem is that it takes forever to build nuclear reactors and we would need twenty tim

There are lots of nuclear reactors being built world wide currently. The problem is that it takes forever to build nuclear reactors and we would need twenty times as much nuclear as we have right now just to replace coal. An additional twenty times as much as we have now to replace oil. And an additional fifteen times as much as we have right now to replace gas. Nuclear is not particularly cheap either.

Krssst 3y ago
That's why you build non-dispatchable renewables at the same time. NREs can help quickly reduce emissions when there's wind/sun, and when nuclear reactors are online you can finally bury the coal plants that were running during windless nights.
coffeebeqn 3y ago
Renewables still have a grid level storage issue. Having enough nuclear as a backbone would be the best we can do right now until battery tech catches up
- adrianN 3y ago
  "Right now" is incompatible with nuclear. It takes at least a decade to build a nuclear power plant. By that time we can have a lot of hydrogen storage and electrolysis.
gcoakes 3y ago
Are those real numbers? Also, do you mean additive or multiplicative (i.e.: 20 + 20 + 15 vs. 20 * 20 * 15).
- adrianN 3y ago
  We have about 2500TWh/a of nuclear worldwide. 42000TWh/a coal, 48000TWh/a oil, and 38000TWh/a gas. Give or take a few thousand TWh.
  - sassy_quat 3y ago
    [dead]
askvictor 3y ago
Where do you get those numbers from? In terms of total energy use, perhaps. But oil accounts for about 3% for electricity generation, compared to coal's 36% [https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/world https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/w...]. Most oil is used for transport, so dropping that would increase electricity demand, though a lot of that doesn't need to be dispatchable, and there might be efficiencies gained moving to electric. Similarly with gas and heating (gas is used for electricity generation a lot more than oil though). Also, the same site shows nuclear as about 10% of the electricity generation mix worldwide; unless there's about 5x as much coal being used for steel-making and other non-electricity purposes, then the numbers would be around 5x instead of 20x.
- adrianN 3y ago
  I google for world primary energy use. You’re right that electrification reduces primary energy use. That’s of course true for coal and gas as well.

Krssst 3y ago

That's why you build non-dispatchable renewables at the same time. NREs can help quickly reduce emissions when there's wind/sun, and when nuclear reactors are online you can finally bury the coal plants that were running during windless nights.

coffeebeqn 3y ago

Renewables still have a grid level storage issue. Having enough nuclear as a backbone would be the best we can do right now until battery tech catches up

adrianN 3y ago
"Right now" is incompatible with nuclear. It takes at least a decade to build a nuclear power plant. By that time we can have a lot of hydrogen storage and electrolysis.

gcoakes 3y ago

Are those real numbers? Also, do you mean additive or multiplicative (i.e.: 20 + 20 + 15 vs. 20 * 20 * 15).

adrianN 3y ago
We have about 2500TWh/a of nuclear worldwide. 42000TWh/a coal, 48000TWh/a oil, and 38000TWh/a gas. Give or take a few thousand TWh.
- sassy_quat 3y ago
  [dead]

askvictor 3y ago

Where do you get those numbers from? In terms of total energy use, perhaps. But oil accounts for about 3% for electricity generation, compared to coal's 36% [https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/world https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/w...]. Most oil is used for transport, so dropping that would increase electricity demand, though a lot of that doesn't need to be dispatchable, and there might be efficiencies gained moving to electric. Similarly with gas and heating (gas is used for electricity generation a lot more than oil though). Also, the same site shows nuclear as about 10% of the electricity generation mix worldwide; unless there's about 5x as much coal being used for steel-making and other non-electricity purposes, then the numbers would be around 5x instead of 20x.

adrianN 3y ago
I google for world primary energy use. You’re right that electrification reduces primary energy use. That’s of course true for coal and gas as well.