7 ms·

As much as I’ve been rooting for nuclear, I think the ship has sailed. If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive with renewables plus some storage (I’ll

As much as I’ve been rooting for nuclear, I think the ship has sailed. If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive with renewables plus some storage (I’ll get to that in a minute) then why would you ever deploy it. Renewables are really cheap and getting cheaper, so some combination of overbuild with storage is probably the winning formula. Storage is a little too expensive as lithium ion batteries, but there’s literally a hundred alternative there. I’m fond of pumped hydro, which we can do anywhere with a height difference, we don’t need to restrict that to existing dams. But there’s lots of options there and many are very viable. So nuclear (including hypothetical nuclear fusion) will probably not acquire significant market share. Unless you can somehow make it cost competitive. If you look at planned energy projects, the market has very clearly spoken. That doesn’t mean it can’t change, but I don’t think it’s likely.

pjc50 3y ago
> I’m fond of pumped hydro, which we can do anywhere with a height difference Not really economical unless you've got some suitably-shaped geology to build most of the storage vessels out of. The lithium issues may be addressed by sodium-ion, which is now mature enough that you can buy it on aliexpress.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  "Suitably-shaped geology" means a hilltop, depression optional. Without, you can scrape off the hilltop itself, and use the material to build a levee.
- slashdev 3y ago
  There’s sodium ion, molten sodium, iron air, probably various options with iron or aluminum. There’s literally dozens of promising battery chemistries for grid storage where weight and density don’t matter.
TylerE 3y ago
22% of US power is generated via nuclear. Is that not significant? More than renewables, almost as much as coal.
- slashdev 3y ago
  That was built in the past, I’m talking purely about future potential for nuclear.
mabbo 3y ago
> So nuclear (including hypothetical nuclear fusion) will probably not acquire significant market share. Unless you can somehow make it cost competitive. Ontario is a great counter example. We have something like 60-70% of our power from nuclear, representing most of the base load. We're building more plants soon too. Electricity is cheap, and used to be even cheaper before it was privatized. And we have no nuclear weapons program supporting these plants.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Ontario has cheap nuclear because it's nuclear fleet was build in the best possible time, the past. Even china [0] renowned for pushing projects through and "getting stuff done" hasn't been able to push the price and construction time of nuclear down enough to make them cheap and easy to build. [0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/06/renewables-in-china-trend-upward-while-nuclear-trends-flat/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/06/renewables-in-china-tre...
- slashdev 3y ago
  Ontario is a great example where no no nuclear projects have been built or proposed at a competitive price. I stand by my assertion that nuclear is dead in the West until shown contemporary numbers to the contrary.
ImJamal 3y ago
>If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive with renewables plus some storage (I’ll get to that in a minute) then why would you ever deploy it. Because it can work rain or shine. Wind or no wind. What happens if we have no wind and have a lot of clouds for a few weeks in an area? The storage is limited and nuclear can still produce. Yes, I understand other areas can likely pick up the slack, but nuclear doesn't have that issue. At a minimum nuclear is a good thing to have as a back up even if we have sufficient renewables. Also, don't forget climate change is supposed to cause more extreme weather events. We don't know what impact that will have on wind and solar.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Not entirely free of operational problems. France has repeatedly had to dial down their reactors when the river cooling water was too warm.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Solar still produces on cloudy days. The answer is a combination of storage, overbuild, long distance interconnections, and diversification ( which mostly means we keep some natural gas plants around, not new nuclear.)
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    Solar can produce on cloudy days, but can be greatly reduced. I've seen estimates at 10-25% of the normal rate on a very cloudy day. If there is no wind being generated at the same time it could cause issues. Sure overbuilding might work, but only getting 10% of the solar and 0% of the wind would require such massive overbuilding it would probably not be practical. I did mention interconnection. While it can help, there can be extreme weather over large parts of the country at one time. We have fires in Canada blocking out some parts of the North East. Imagine if there was a large fire happening in California and a hurricane in the south. As climate change continues that is only going to get worse blocking out solar in large chunks of the country. The problem is determining the correct amount of storage. If we get 10% of the normal solar along with no wind for a week or two would there be enough storage? I'm guessing not. It is good you agree that we need some diversity. So many people are radicals and say we don't need an alternative. I agree with your sentiment, but think we should also have nuclear not just natural gas. Nuclear is reliable and clean. Why use natural gas if we don't need to?
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive Did they ever get rid of the rule that prohibits nuclear from being cost competitive? Its opponents got it so if they ever found a way to make it cost less the money explicitly had to be spent on new safety measures. Which obviously not only makes it impossible to reduce the cost but also removes any incentive to try.
- jakewins 3y ago
  What legal jurisdiction are you saying this was a rule in? I’ve never heard of this
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    US. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html Google doesn't want to find a more specific link right now, but you can see the implication from the definition: If you find a way to make nuclear cost less than something else, now it's economical to make it cost more in order to reduce radiation exposure, with no lower limit where you can stop.
jakewins 3y ago
Rooftop solar in Australia is now cheaper in some jurisdictions than transmission per kWh. Meaning, if I tried to build a nuke or any other centralized generator and I gave the electricity away for free, rooftop solar would still be cheaper per kWh because consumers don’t need to pay to maintain transmission infrastructure.. Of course, only when the sun is shining. But it’s an incredible Lego block we’ve got to play with in building this new energy system, zero marginal cost generation.
- slashdev 3y ago
  > Rooftop solar in Australia is now cheaper in some jurisdictions than transmission per kWh That is mind blowing to me. There’s definitely an argument to be made for decentralizing the grid.

pjc50 3y ago

> I’m fond of pumped hydro, which we can do anywhere with a height difference Not really economical unless you've got some suitably-shaped geology to build most of the storage vessels out of. The lithium issues may be addressed by sodium-ion, which is now mature enough that you can buy it on aliexpress.

angiosperm 3y ago
"Suitably-shaped geology" means a hilltop, depression optional. Without, you can scrape off the hilltop itself, and use the material to build a levee.
slashdev 3y ago
There’s sodium ion, molten sodium, iron air, probably various options with iron or aluminum. There’s literally dozens of promising battery chemistries for grid storage where weight and density don’t matter.

TylerE 3y ago

22% of US power is generated via nuclear. Is that not significant? More than renewables, almost as much as coal.

slashdev 3y ago
That was built in the past, I’m talking purely about future potential for nuclear.

mabbo 3y ago

> So nuclear (including hypothetical nuclear fusion) will probably not acquire significant market share. Unless you can somehow make it cost competitive. Ontario is a great counter example. We have something like 60-70% of our power from nuclear, representing most of the base load. We're building more plants soon too. Electricity is cheap, and used to be even cheaper before it was privatized. And we have no nuclear weapons program supporting these plants.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Ontario has cheap nuclear because it's nuclear fleet was build in the best possible time, the past. Even china [0] renowned for pushing projects through and "getting stuff done" hasn't been able to push the price and construction time of nuclear down enough to make them cheap and easy to build. [0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/06/renewables-in-china-trend-upward-while-nuclear-trends-flat/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/06/renewables-in-china-tre...
slashdev 3y ago
Ontario is a great example where no no nuclear projects have been built or proposed at a competitive price. I stand by my assertion that nuclear is dead in the West until shown contemporary numbers to the contrary.

ImJamal 3y ago

>If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive with renewables plus some storage (I’ll get to that in a minute) then why would you ever deploy it. Because it can work rain or shine. Wind or no wind. What happens if we have no wind and have a lot of clouds for a few weeks in an area? The storage is limited and nuclear can still produce. Yes, I understand other areas can likely pick up the slack, but nuclear doesn't have that issue. At a minimum nuclear is a good thing to have as a back up even if we have sufficient renewables. Also, don't forget climate change is supposed to cause more extreme weather events. We don't know what impact that will have on wind and solar.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Not entirely free of operational problems. France has repeatedly had to dial down their reactors when the river cooling water was too warm.
slashdev 3y ago
Solar still produces on cloudy days. The answer is a combination of storage, overbuild, long distance interconnections, and diversification ( which mostly means we keep some natural gas plants around, not new nuclear.)
- ImJamal 3y ago
  Solar can produce on cloudy days, but can be greatly reduced. I've seen estimates at 10-25% of the normal rate on a very cloudy day. If there is no wind being generated at the same time it could cause issues. Sure overbuilding might work, but only getting 10% of the solar and 0% of the wind would require such massive overbuilding it would probably not be practical. I did mention interconnection. While it can help, there can be extreme weather over large parts of the country at one time. We have fires in Canada blocking out some parts of the North East. Imagine if there was a large fire happening in California and a hurricane in the south. As climate change continues that is only going to get worse blocking out solar in large chunks of the country. The problem is determining the correct amount of storage. If we get 10% of the normal solar along with no wind for a week or two would there be enough storage? I'm guessing not. It is good you agree that we need some diversity. So many people are radicals and say we don't need an alternative. I agree with your sentiment, but think we should also have nuclear not just natural gas. Nuclear is reliable and clean. Why use natural gas if we don't need to?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive Did they ever get rid of the rule that prohibits nuclear from being cost competitive? Its opponents got it so if they ever found a way to make it cost less the money explicitly had to be spent on new safety measures. Which obviously not only makes it impossible to reduce the cost but also removes any incentive to try.

jakewins 3y ago
What legal jurisdiction are you saying this was a rule in? I’ve never heard of this
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  US. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html Google doesn't want to find a more specific link right now, but you can see the implication from the definition: If you find a way to make nuclear cost less than something else, now it's economical to make it cost more in order to reduce radiation exposure, with no lower limit where you can stop.

jakewins 3y ago

Rooftop solar in Australia is now cheaper in some jurisdictions than transmission per kWh. Meaning, if I tried to build a nuke or any other centralized generator and I gave the electricity away for free, rooftop solar would still be cheaper per kWh because consumers don’t need to pay to maintain transmission infrastructure.. Of course, only when the sun is shining. But it’s an incredible Lego block we’ve got to play with in building this new energy system, zero marginal cost generation.

slashdev 3y ago
> Rooftop solar in Australia is now cheaper in some jurisdictions than transmission per kWh That is mind blowing to me. There’s definitely an argument to be made for decentralizing the grid.