3 ms·

Somebody always wants to tout nuclear, even when that's not the topic at hand. Nuclear is equally unsuitable to solar as a stand-alone energy source. Nuclear en

Somebody always wants to tout nuclear, even when that's not the topic at hand. Nuclear is equally unsuitable to solar as a stand-alone energy source. Nuclear energy is produced constantly throughout the day, and would not match the daytime peaks in electricity consumption. Anyway, this article is discussing one of many new ways that power usage can be shifted around during the day, which makes solar able to provide a LARGER share of our overall energy.

vlovich123 3y ago
No, this article is saying that if you have a hybrid grid of fossil fuels & solar, desal is a cheaper application than storing in batteries & using solar power banked in batteries at night. If you have a full renewable grid, that advantage disappears. That’s because the price differential comes from arbitrage & that price differential makes desal cheaper than building capacity. I bring up nuclear whenever there’s a discussion of grid energy to provide a reality check that solar is not able to get us to net 0 by 2050 in any way regardless of clever new ideas. By contrast nuclear actually does have that capability and it’s not purely theoretical nor “hey what if we productionized some new hypothetical theoretical idea at massive scale and ignore all unintended side effects” - we have plenty of existence proof that nuclear is a drop-in replacement for fossil fuels & thus actually very quickly reduces the need for them in the grid energy mix whereas no such existence proof really exists for renewables (yes - someone brought up Denmark but that’s not a repeatable situation because they are one of the windiest places on earth and wind doesn’t have the same critical downsides that solar does for grid power).
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  >very quickly Vogtle 3 just came online in July, 17 years after the initial application was filed. Unit 4 hasn't come online yet. They're going to cost more than double the initial estimate. I just don't get the fascination with a power source that is so much more expensive and slower to bring online.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Because the problems of the US regulatory systems are not endemic to the tech. The fascination is we know it should be very cost competitive (in fact cheaper than fossil fuels), can run 24/7 (not true for renewables except hydro), and can fully replace all existing fossil fuel plant use cases (not true for renewables except for hydro), and basically has as much energy as we would ever need to build (not true for hydro as there’s only so many rivers in the world and same for wind which is similarly not evenly distributed), and can be built anywhere (applies more to wind than solar but still a little true for solar). In other words a lot of proven upside and little downside. The frequently mentioned ones are safety (completely solved by next gen designs of SMRs/thorium/etc) and cost (improved by SMRs but actually largely a political self inflicted problem). Basically it and hydro are the only green tech that have shown the ability to completely displace the need for fossil fuels. With solar/wind we’re left with a hybrid grid and hoping that battery tech improves to the point where we overbuild enough solar that we can recharge batteries with excess capacity for nighttime use (the price of which is frequently ignored when discussing solar as a grid energy). In other words - it’s an open question as to solar and wind can replace base load requirements (which are substantial). If they can’t then we’re left with fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind. As we see in China, they’re building a crapton of fossil fuel (specifically coal) power plants that they will run overnight / emergency situations during the day. That’s progress but it’s a long way away from net 0. That’s why they’re also investing in their capability to build fission. that’s why you’ll see their fission projects finish on time and get cheaper over time. Fission is “more expensive” not because of the tech but because we don’t make enough of it to recoup economies of scale. You’d see the same effect with solar but because solar doesn’t pose as much threat to fossil fuels in the near term people don’t really care (it’s a very long transition period - I fully expect us to not achieve net 0 by 2100 unless we switch to nuclear). Keep in mind that solar and wind also can’t solve major transportation use cases with ships and planes which can’t be electrified (even an open question for semis but at least plausible there over time). Planes likely are the hardest but putting reactors that can’t meltdown onto ships sounds like a no brainer and would cut a huge green house gas emitter and an insane amount of pollution going into the oceans.
robocat 3y ago
> Nuclear energy is produced constantly throughout the day, and would not match the daytime peaks in electricity consumption. Nuclear is perfectly good at load following until the U is nearly burnt: the French do it. The reason nuclear is most suited to base load is because the capital costs are so high it makes sense to use a reactor as close to 100% utilisation as you can.
- neilkk 3y ago
  The French have tons of hydro, more than any other industrialised country can feasibly add.

vlovich123 3y ago

No, this article is saying that if you have a hybrid grid of fossil fuels & solar, desal is a cheaper application than storing in batteries & using solar power banked in batteries at night. If you have a full renewable grid, that advantage disappears. That’s because the price differential comes from arbitrage & that price differential makes desal cheaper than building capacity. I bring up nuclear whenever there’s a discussion of grid energy to provide a reality check that solar is not able to get us to net 0 by 2050 in any way regardless of clever new ideas. By contrast nuclear actually does have that capability and it’s not purely theoretical nor “hey what if we productionized some new hypothetical theoretical idea at massive scale and ignore all unintended side effects” - we have plenty of existence proof that nuclear is a drop-in replacement for fossil fuels & thus actually very quickly reduces the need for them in the grid energy mix whereas no such existence proof really exists for renewables (yes - someone brought up Denmark but that’s not a repeatable situation because they are one of the windiest places on earth and wind doesn’t have the same critical downsides that solar does for grid power).

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
>very quickly Vogtle 3 just came online in July, 17 years after the initial application was filed. Unit 4 hasn't come online yet. They're going to cost more than double the initial estimate. I just don't get the fascination with a power source that is so much more expensive and slower to bring online.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Because the problems of the US regulatory systems are not endemic to the tech. The fascination is we know it should be very cost competitive (in fact cheaper than fossil fuels), can run 24/7 (not true for renewables except hydro), and can fully replace all existing fossil fuel plant use cases (not true for renewables except for hydro), and basically has as much energy as we would ever need to build (not true for hydro as there’s only so many rivers in the world and same for wind which is similarly not evenly distributed), and can be built anywhere (applies more to wind than solar but still a little true for solar). In other words a lot of proven upside and little downside. The frequently mentioned ones are safety (completely solved by next gen designs of SMRs/thorium/etc) and cost (improved by SMRs but actually largely a political self inflicted problem). Basically it and hydro are the only green tech that have shown the ability to completely displace the need for fossil fuels. With solar/wind we’re left with a hybrid grid and hoping that battery tech improves to the point where we overbuild enough solar that we can recharge batteries with excess capacity for nighttime use (the price of which is frequently ignored when discussing solar as a grid energy). In other words - it’s an open question as to solar and wind can replace base load requirements (which are substantial). If they can’t then we’re left with fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind. As we see in China, they’re building a crapton of fossil fuel (specifically coal) power plants that they will run overnight / emergency situations during the day. That’s progress but it’s a long way away from net 0. That’s why they’re also investing in their capability to build fission. that’s why you’ll see their fission projects finish on time and get cheaper over time. Fission is “more expensive” not because of the tech but because we don’t make enough of it to recoup economies of scale. You’d see the same effect with solar but because solar doesn’t pose as much threat to fossil fuels in the near term people don’t really care (it’s a very long transition period - I fully expect us to not achieve net 0 by 2100 unless we switch to nuclear). Keep in mind that solar and wind also can’t solve major transportation use cases with ships and planes which can’t be electrified (even an open question for semis but at least plausible there over time). Planes likely are the hardest but putting reactors that can’t meltdown onto ships sounds like a no brainer and would cut a huge green house gas emitter and an insane amount of pollution going into the oceans.

robocat 3y ago

> Nuclear energy is produced constantly throughout the day, and would not match the daytime peaks in electricity consumption. Nuclear is perfectly good at load following until the U is nearly burnt: the French do it. The reason nuclear is most suited to base load is because the capital costs are so high it makes sense to use a reactor as close to 100% utilisation as you can.

neilkk 3y ago
The French have tons of hydro, more than any other industrialised country can feasibly add.