4 ms·

The alternative today are renewables with minimal environmental problems, and recycling potential. Framing it as a question of fossil fuels vs nuclear is build

The alternative today are renewables with minimal environmental problems, and recycling potential. Framing it as a question of fossil fuels vs nuclear is building a strawman.

nradov 3y ago
Renewables only seem like an alternative if you ignore base load and grid stability issues. There are potential approaches to solving those problems (such as battery storage) but none have been proven to work economically at scale yet.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  The "It is impossible until proven possible beyond reasonable doubt" take is backwards and quite uninteresting. One thing is certain, nuclear power is not proven to work economically at scale yet, despite 70 years of subsidies. This, quite biased, article has an interesting take on the question. Look to flows rather than stocks. > Rarely mentioned is the fact that renewables have been taking an increasing share of the growth in energy supply, and all of the growth in 2019-21. Moving the focus from stocks to flows moves the conclusion from no change to radical change. Concentrating on the size of the fossil fuel system today is like focusing on the large number of horses in 1900 — it was as good a guide then as it is now. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709 https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709
  - namdnay 3y ago
    Seems to work fine for France, with 90% carbon free electricity and low prices
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      Forgetting to mention the French state having to nationalize and take over €65B debt from EDF, their ailing nuclear power provider, and having to agree to raise nuclear electricity prices. But I guess it's fine if you pay with your tax bill rather than electricity bill.
      - KptMarchewa 3y ago
        Which is still cheaper than coal externalities.
      - robocat 3y ago
        > tax bill France is also the world's largest net exporter of nuclear energy, bringing in more than €3 billion per year.
- JohnCClarke 3y ago
  Providing "base load" is often touted as an advantage of nuclear power plants (NPP) here on HN. The reality is actually the opposite. As the International Atomic Energy Agency says[1]: "Any unexpected sudden disconnect of the NPP from an otherwise stable electric grid could trigger a severe imbalance between power generation and consumption causing a sudden reduction in grid frequency and voltage. This could even cascade into the collapse of the grid if additional power sources are not connected to the grid in time." Basically NPPs are designed to SCRAM for all sorts of reasons, then the sudden loss of multiple GW really ruins the grid managers' day. The first paragraphs of [1] make it clear that a large, stable, grid is a pre-requisite for NPPs not a result of NPPs. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_en.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_e...
  - nradov 3y ago
    And yet the grids in areas with a high level of nuclear power generation have been pretty stable in practice. Any type of power plant can have to shut down for emergency maintenance so there's nothing unique about nuclear plants there. There are a variety of very real problems with nuclear power. But pointing those out does nothing to make renewables viable as a base load source.

The alternative today are renewables with minimal environmental problems, and recycling potential. Framing it as a question of fossil fuels vs nuclear is building a strawman.

nradov 3y ago

Renewables only seem like an alternative if you ignore base load and grid stability issues. There are potential approaches to solving those problems (such as battery storage) but none have been proven to work economically at scale yet.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
The "It is impossible until proven possible beyond reasonable doubt" take is backwards and quite uninteresting. One thing is certain, nuclear power is not proven to work economically at scale yet, despite 70 years of subsidies. This, quite biased, article has an interesting take on the question. Look to flows rather than stocks. > Rarely mentioned is the fact that renewables have been taking an increasing share of the growth in energy supply, and all of the growth in 2019-21. Moving the focus from stocks to flows moves the conclusion from no change to radical change. Concentrating on the size of the fossil fuel system today is like focusing on the large number of horses in 1900 — it was as good a guide then as it is now. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709 https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709
- namdnay 3y ago
  Seems to work fine for France, with 90% carbon free electricity and low prices
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    Forgetting to mention the French state having to nationalize and take over €65B debt from EDF, their ailing nuclear power provider, and having to agree to raise nuclear electricity prices. But I guess it's fine if you pay with your tax bill rather than electricity bill.
    - KptMarchewa 3y ago
      Which is still cheaper than coal externalities.
    - robocat 3y ago
      > tax bill France is also the world's largest net exporter of nuclear energy, bringing in more than €3 billion per year.
JohnCClarke 3y ago
Providing "base load" is often touted as an advantage of nuclear power plants (NPP) here on HN. The reality is actually the opposite. As the International Atomic Energy Agency says[1]: "Any unexpected sudden disconnect of the NPP from an otherwise stable electric grid could trigger a severe imbalance between power generation and consumption causing a sudden reduction in grid frequency and voltage. This could even cascade into the collapse of the grid if additional power sources are not connected to the grid in time." Basically NPPs are designed to SCRAM for all sorts of reasons, then the sudden loss of multiple GW really ruins the grid managers' day. The first paragraphs of [1] make it clear that a large, stable, grid is a pre-requisite for NPPs not a result of NPPs. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_en.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_e...
- nradov 3y ago
  And yet the grids in areas with a high level of nuclear power generation have been pretty stable in practice. Any type of power plant can have to shut down for emergency maintenance so there's nothing unique about nuclear plants there. There are a variety of very real problems with nuclear power. But pointing those out does nothing to make renewables viable as a base load source.