5 ms·

The pro-nuclear growd (funny how easy it is for otherwise smart people to be sold on mere talking points) has a point so: during generation a nuclear power plan

by hef19898 3y ago

The pro-nuclear growd (funny how easy it is for otherwise smart people to be sold on mere talking points) has a point so: during generation a nuclear power plant doesn't emit CO2. What people willfully (?) ignore is the simple fact that a) we don't have enough nuclear capacity installed, and never did and b) you cannot just wish nuclear power plants into existence. The latter being the main blocking point. Just how you can jump from that to opposing renewables build outs is beyond me. And honestly, nobody is lobbying for new coal plants, except the operators and owners of those plants. And boy, do they have a lobby...

adev_ 3y ago
> Just how you can jump from that to opposing renewables build outs is beyond me. No you do not get it I think. The world need Nuclear AND Renewable energy. Working hand to hand to accelerate decarbonization, as fast as you can. We need low carbon electricity production. And try to achieve that exclusively with renewable due to (close to) religious beliefs is an extremely dangerous bet on humankind. I am not aware of many lobbies arguing that we need a world 100% nuclear. However, I know many old world lobbies (like Greenpeace) that would prefer to die on the hill of climate change instead of admitting that the world need nuclear energy.
- natmaka 3y ago
  > Nuclear AND Renewable energy It cannot be done because it financially condemns new nuclear plants. "The rates at which conventional power plants are utilized will continue to decrease as competitive pressure from near-zero marginal cost solar photovoltaic and onshore wind power, and battery energy storage continue to grow exponentially worldwide." Eye-opening video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg
  - adev_ 3y ago
    It is does not. LCOE is a metric from the Lazard institute has been debunked many time alreayd because it does not take into consideration the cost of the capacity guarantee of the grid. If you had that, Nuclear become competitive. If you had that and tax properly coal and Gas plant proportionally to the emission they really do. Nuclear become even incredibly cheap, specially if we consider its hydrogen co-generation capabilities.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). Nuclear is, by any metric you want, on the actual happening markets too expensivebto build new capacity. No amount of "if-only-and-then-if"s changes that.
      - adev_ 3y ago
        > Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). It is not true anymore [1] [1]: https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu-electricity-market-reform-what-did-paris-and-berlin-obtain/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu...
        hef19898 3y ago
        I didn't find any details on the new pricing structure so in the article...
        adev_ 3y ago
        Just dig up a bit the way the CfDs are working ....
        hef19898 3y ago
        So, how are they working? Contract for Difference of Cumputational Fluid Dynamics, bothbof which are related to electricity generation?
    - natmaka 3y ago
      LCOE (cost of produced electricity: the difference between nuclear and renewables is huge, and growing. Therefore it offers financial resources to build what is needed for a renewables-based system to provide most of the time: continental grid interconnections (many already done, most already planed because they are useful even without renewables), green hydrogen backup, V2G and smartgrid (also planed whatever the type of production units)...) > hydrogen co-generation Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewable-generated electricity, and on the hydrogen chain all other costs are the same whatever the type of electricity-production units. Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.
- hef19898 3y ago
  We need nuclear, as a stop gap. New NPS are just impossible in the developed world, cost as well as time wise. Keeping existing NPPs online, sure, as long as safely possible (which is what Germany did). That is not really the argument you are making so, is it?
JanSt 3y ago
So what's the CO2 free alternative? AFAIK nobody is really opposing renewables. It's just the 100% RE dream that would require massive battery, grid and space (building many, many wind turbines)

adev_ 3y ago

> Just how you can jump from that to opposing renewables build outs is beyond me. No you do not get it I think. The world need Nuclear AND Renewable energy. Working hand to hand to accelerate decarbonization, as fast as you can. We need low carbon electricity production. And try to achieve that exclusively with renewable due to (close to) religious beliefs is an extremely dangerous bet on humankind. I am not aware of many lobbies arguing that we need a world 100% nuclear. However, I know many old world lobbies (like Greenpeace) that would prefer to die on the hill of climate change instead of admitting that the world need nuclear energy.

natmaka 3y ago
> Nuclear AND Renewable energy It cannot be done because it financially condemns new nuclear plants. "The rates at which conventional power plants are utilized will continue to decrease as competitive pressure from near-zero marginal cost solar photovoltaic and onshore wind power, and battery energy storage continue to grow exponentially worldwide." Eye-opening video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg
- adev_ 3y ago
  It is does not. LCOE is a metric from the Lazard institute has been debunked many time alreayd because it does not take into consideration the cost of the capacity guarantee of the grid. If you had that, Nuclear become competitive. If you had that and tax properly coal and Gas plant proportionally to the emission they really do. Nuclear become even incredibly cheap, specially if we consider its hydrogen co-generation capabilities.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). Nuclear is, by any metric you want, on the actual happening markets too expensivebto build new capacity. No amount of "if-only-and-then-if"s changes that.
    - adev_ 3y ago
      > Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). It is not true anymore [1] [1]: https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu-electricity-market-reform-what-did-paris-and-berlin-obtain/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu...
      - hef19898 3y ago
        I didn't find any details on the new pricing structure so in the article...
        adev_ 3y ago
        Just dig up a bit the way the CfDs are working ....
        hef19898 3y ago
        So, how are they working? Contract for Difference of Cumputational Fluid Dynamics, bothbof which are related to electricity generation?
  - natmaka 3y ago
    LCOE (cost of produced electricity: the difference between nuclear and renewables is huge, and growing. Therefore it offers financial resources to build what is needed for a renewables-based system to provide most of the time: continental grid interconnections (many already done, most already planed because they are useful even without renewables), green hydrogen backup, V2G and smartgrid (also planed whatever the type of production units)...) > hydrogen co-generation Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewable-generated electricity, and on the hydrogen chain all other costs are the same whatever the type of electricity-production units. Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.
hef19898 3y ago
We need nuclear, as a stop gap. New NPS are just impossible in the developed world, cost as well as time wise. Keeping existing NPPs online, sure, as long as safely possible (which is what Germany did). That is not really the argument you are making so, is it?

JanSt 3y ago

So what's the CO2 free alternative? AFAIK nobody is really opposing renewables. It's just the 100% RE dream that would require massive battery, grid and space (building many, many wind turbines)