3 ms·

Nuclear already isn't competitive. Nobody is building anything new, they only maintain what was built, and even that is going down and not being replaced. The

Nuclear already isn't competitive. Nobody is building anything new, they only maintain what was built, and even that is going down and not being replaced. The problem is that nuclear is heavy on capital costs, and cheap renewables dig in very badly into its business model, making it even worse. Also, nuclear isn't completely reliable either. Plants do go down. Spare capacity is still needed. IMO the long term future is a mix of renewables supplemented by something like gas, batteries, other storage, overprovisioning and interconnection (eg, Europe).

p1mrx 3y ago
> Nuclear already isn't competitive. Because we're still burning fossil fuels. It's hard to compete when your opponent is cheating. > Also, nuclear isn't completely reliable either. Plants do go down. Spare capacity is still needed. That's what multiple plants are for, ideally of heterogeneous design. > something like gas If gas (as in fossil methane) is part of our long-term future, then we are quite screwed. Maybe it's viable with carbon sequestration, but that's unproven technology. The other options you listed will be required to make renewables 99.999% reliable.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > Because we're still burning fossil fuels. It's hard to compete when your opponent is cheating. No, the cheapest are renewables. Because say, pumping out solar cells by the billion is what mass manufacturing does best, and nuclear has nothing remotely comparable to that. > If gas (as in fossil methane) is part of our long-term future, then we are quite screwed. Maybe it's viable with carbon sequestration, but that's unproven technology. The other options you listed will be required to make renewables 99.999% reliable. You seem to be treating this as a moral issue. I see it as a practical one. Gas is just fine to fill whatever holes we might have. Yes, it's not clean. But using say, 10% fossil fuels rather than 60% would be a vast improvement. We can always improve further.
  - p1mrx 3y ago
    > No, the cheapest are renewables. Renewables are cheap most of the time, so we should build lots of them. The interesting question is what to do when the weather is bad. Currently the answer is to burn fossil fuels. We need to stop doing that. > You seem to be treating this as a moral issue. No, it's a physics issue. Every gram of CO2 we put into the air, someone in the future needs to remove at great expense. There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower. Heh. The older generations said "we'll be dead by then so it doesn't matter." Now younger generations are thinking along the lines of "If we can delay it until after I'm dead, that'll do."
      - dale_glass 3y ago
        Nonsense. Perfection is the enemy of "good enough". There are carbon sinks on the planet, for one. We don't need to convert ourselves into some species of tree elves magically in tune with nature. We just need to be a lot better than we are now, which is a good deal easier. And yes, delaying the problem has a huge value. Because stuff takes time to build, and theoretical stuff takes a long time to develop. If you think nuclear or fusion have something to offer, then time is a huge boon to you. If we need to convert everything NOW, then there's not even a point of thinking about nuclear, it just can't be built fast enough. Let alone fusion. Certainly I wouldn't say no to complete carbon neutrality world-wide. But given how things are it's clear that this is an unrealistic goal on a short/medium term. But that doesn't mean there aren't big improvements we can't make.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        Just gotta delay it until after you're dead, then it's future peoples problem to solve amirite.

p1mrx 3y ago

> Nuclear already isn't competitive. Because we're still burning fossil fuels. It's hard to compete when your opponent is cheating. > Also, nuclear isn't completely reliable either. Plants do go down. Spare capacity is still needed. That's what multiple plants are for, ideally of heterogeneous design. > something like gas If gas (as in fossil methane) is part of our long-term future, then we are quite screwed. Maybe it's viable with carbon sequestration, but that's unproven technology. The other options you listed will be required to make renewables 99.999% reliable.

dale_glass 3y ago
> Because we're still burning fossil fuels. It's hard to compete when your opponent is cheating. No, the cheapest are renewables. Because say, pumping out solar cells by the billion is what mass manufacturing does best, and nuclear has nothing remotely comparable to that. > If gas (as in fossil methane) is part of our long-term future, then we are quite screwed. Maybe it's viable with carbon sequestration, but that's unproven technology. The other options you listed will be required to make renewables 99.999% reliable. You seem to be treating this as a moral issue. I see it as a practical one. Gas is just fine to fill whatever holes we might have. Yes, it's not clean. But using say, 10% fossil fuels rather than 60% would be a vast improvement. We can always improve further.
- p1mrx 3y ago
  > No, the cheapest are renewables. Renewables are cheap most of the time, so we should build lots of them. The interesting question is what to do when the weather is bad. Currently the answer is to burn fossil fuels. We need to stop doing that. > You seem to be treating this as a moral issue. No, it's a physics issue. Every gram of CO2 we put into the air, someone in the future needs to remove at great expense. There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower. Heh. The older generations said "we'll be dead by then so it doesn't matter." Now younger generations are thinking along the lines of "If we can delay it until after I'm dead, that'll do."
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      Nonsense. Perfection is the enemy of "good enough". There are carbon sinks on the planet, for one. We don't need to convert ourselves into some species of tree elves magically in tune with nature. We just need to be a lot better than we are now, which is a good deal easier. And yes, delaying the problem has a huge value. Because stuff takes time to build, and theoretical stuff takes a long time to develop. If you think nuclear or fusion have something to offer, then time is a huge boon to you. If we need to convert everything NOW, then there's not even a point of thinking about nuclear, it just can't be built fast enough. Let alone fusion. Certainly I wouldn't say no to complete carbon neutrality world-wide. But given how things are it's clear that this is an unrealistic goal on a short/medium term. But that doesn't mean there aren't big improvements we can't make.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        Just gotta delay it until after you're dead, then it's future peoples problem to solve amirite.