5 ms·

There is an unfortunate tunnel vision focus on renewables when the real goal should be deep decarbonization. The reason is obvious when you realize that people

There is an unfortunate tunnel vision focus on renewables when the real goal should be deep decarbonization. The reason is obvious when you realize that people of a certain generation (who are in power now) don't like nuclear energy because 'nuclear' was the bogeyman while they were growing up. They are dragging the rest of us down with them into an era of unstable and unreliable power at huge expense.

7952 3y ago
I am in favour of nuclear but a politically unpalatable solution is useless for decarbonisation.
- yawaramin 2y ago
  It's only politically unpalatable until we, the people, make it palatable to our politicians.
_heimdall 3y ago
That only really holds true if disruptions in the carbon cycle are the fundamental root cause. Carbon seems extremely important no doubt, but I've never personally bought the idea that the health of the entire planet can be boiled down to a single, analytical metric. I've also yet to be convinced that, even if it truly is all about carbon, we understand the problem so completely that we know how to intervene precisely without breaking anything else or causing unexpected side effects. We've seen a noticeable increase in ocean temperatures in the last year or two and I've seen compelling data pointing to it being caused by ultra-low sulfur emissions regulations in marine shipping. People thought they were doing the right thing, they just didn't account for the cooling effects of sulfur in the atmosphere. We could easily do the same with global interventions in the carbon cycle. I'd much rather see us leaning into a reduction in interventions wholesale. Its much harder to break things when you just stop causing so much damage.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  > I've never personally bought the idea that the health of the entire planet It’s not the health of the entire planet that’s at stake. It’s the habitability of the inhabited parts of the planet for humans. The earth will be just fine.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Sure, I'd still stand by my statement making that substitution. I don't think the ecosystem humans specifically depend on can be boiled down to a single metric. We've leaned extremely analytical in modern times but doing so puts us at serious risk of missing the forest for the trees. We have a habit of trying to quantify everything and missing the fact that doing so loses context and greatly increases the risk of over confidence in our ability to understand and intervene with a complex system.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
pydry 3y ago
Politicians have been pushing nuclear power for years. It's 5x more expensive than solar or wind but in America the military hates the idea of not having it around to share costs with. Nuclear subs, nukes, aircraft carriers, etc. need a nuclear industry.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  I don't think nuclear weapons themselves need a nuclear industry, as in an industry for making nuclear reactors, at least in the major nuclear powers. They already have all the plutonium they need. The US hasn't made new plutonium for nuclear weapons in decades.
  - pydry 3y ago
    A lot of the supply chain and skills base is shared between the nuclear military and commercial nuclear. The military's needs are not quite as straightforward as "take plutonium put it in a box". They need nuclear engineers, parts for PWRs, etc. This is why the US government pushes nuclear power heavily in spite of it 5xing the cost of civilian electricity.
pstuart 3y ago
I am pro-nuclear as a concept but it seems to not economically viable -- look to the last plant to open in the US - Vogel being billions and over budget and in no way cost-competitive: https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-... If nuclear is going to ever succeed economically it would have to be via Small Modular Reactors that can be built en mass rather than bespoke power plants. And even there, the price pressure from renewables is making that debatable. An irony here is that nuclear promised energy that was "too cheap to measure" but renewables are actually delivering on that.
- yawaramin 2y ago
  If it's not economically viable then how come countries around the world, from rich to poor, and doing it? Do they just love wasting their money?
  - hackerlight 2y ago
    Divide the amount of new renewable capacity by new nuclear capacity if that's your actual argument.
    - yawaramin 2y ago
      Why capacity and not actual MWh generated electricity?
      - hackerlight 2y ago
        That is a better metric. So, what do your calculations show for 2023?
pfdietz 3y ago
The focus is on decarbonization, which is why the focus is on renewables, as they are the fastest, least cost route to decarbonization (along with efficiency). Nuclear? Why would you want to slow down decarbonization and make the process more expensive? It's almost as if your words of focus on decarbonization are lies.
- yawaramin 2y ago
  > the fastest, least cost route to decarbonization Just wondering, did you read the article? The problem it describes with inverters is just one out of an array of problems with renewables (leaving aside hydro). Cost overruns due to electrical grid incompatibility, hardware instability, operation in bad weather conditions (almost certainly a fact of life in the near future), unprofitability, reliance on China for critical parts of the solar power supply chain...the problems with renewables are endless. Nuclear? Proven technology that's expensive mostly because it's over-regulated beyond all rationality, and because the US foolishly neglected its large-scale manufacturing capabilities and let them atrophy and move offshore. The supply shocks that were felt in the US and Canada because they had to wait for masks from China when the pandemic started, should make this blindingly obvious. You'll also note that every country not controlled by the insane anti-science green lobby is seriously looking at, and many are building, nuclear power plants as fast as they can. UAE, South Korea, China, India, Bangladesh just to name a few. > your words of focus on decarbonization are lies. Am I living in a parallel reality to you, because in my reality France and Ontario, Canada are examples of two regions which achieved deep decarbonization. Guess what they have in common? Most of their power comes from nuclear energy. Guess what happened to German carbon emissions after they shut down their nuclear plants and started up their coal-fired plants? Shocker! Carbon emissions went up. But sure, good luck in your parallel world where actual demonstrated decarbonization is nothing but lies.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Nuclear's issues are far more intractable than renewables. The issues you list with renewables are relatively benign. Inverters? Do you really want to argue electronic devices don't improve and cheapen dramatically over time? Grid compatibility? Nuclear needs a grid too. "Hardware instability"? Like, when a GW+ of capacity suddenly drops off the grid and you have to be ready for that? That's a chronic problem of nuclear. China? I thought they were the go-to party to point to to show nuclear wasn't dead. Nuclear is proven in the sense it has a proven propensity for massive cost overruns. Renewable projects typically come in within 10% of projected cost (at least before overall inflation picked up, but that's affecting everything.) Lots of countries are "looking at" nuclear. Looking is cheap, building is not. Experience with nuclear is showing that building more reactors is a tragic, often hideously expensive mistake. Even in China, nuclear is experiencing considerable friction compared to their renewable rollout. That places like France and Ontario achieved deep decarbonization in the now distant past matters little. Nuclear was competitive with or cheaper than solar and wind back then. Now, it's not, because solar and wind (and storage) have improved so much. You can't go home again; you can't revert to an imagined happy nuclear childhood either. France is finding this out. The notion that an "anti-science green lobby" is holding back nuclear is risible nonsense. This is a go-to conspiracy theory nuclear fans use to avoid the reality. Nuclear is being held back by its own failure to compete. Look at what has happened with costs for new nuclear construction: in the US, in the UK, in France, in Finland, even in the UAE and China (where costs have been high relative to renewable options.) This despite favorable sentiment toward nuclear in the places where they're still trying. Carbon emissions in Germany have gone down even with the nuclear phaseout, btw. I'm sure you can find a year somewhere when they went up, but that's akin to the argument of climate change deniers looking at statistical blips and saying global warming has ended. You yourself are living in a fantasyland where you desperately have to grasp at mental straws to protect yourself from the reality of nuclear's failure. This self deception will rapidly become impossible to sustain in the near future as renewables and storage continue their rampage to domination of the world energy system. Their prices continue to crash, and by the time the world is renewable powered their demonstrated experience effects will likely make them far cheaper than nuclear could ever hope to be. Solar, for example, will likely fall to under $0.01/kWh in the sunniest locations.

7952 3y ago

I am in favour of nuclear but a politically unpalatable solution is useless for decarbonisation.

yawaramin 2y ago
It's only politically unpalatable until we, the people, make it palatable to our politicians.

_heimdall 3y ago

That only really holds true if disruptions in the carbon cycle are the fundamental root cause. Carbon seems extremely important no doubt, but I've never personally bought the idea that the health of the entire planet can be boiled down to a single, analytical metric. I've also yet to be convinced that, even if it truly is all about carbon, we understand the problem so completely that we know how to intervene precisely without breaking anything else or causing unexpected side effects. We've seen a noticeable increase in ocean temperatures in the last year or two and I've seen compelling data pointing to it being caused by ultra-low sulfur emissions regulations in marine shipping. People thought they were doing the right thing, they just didn't account for the cooling effects of sulfur in the atmosphere. We could easily do the same with global interventions in the carbon cycle. I'd much rather see us leaning into a reduction in interventions wholesale. Its much harder to break things when you just stop causing so much damage.

the_gastropod 3y ago
> I've never personally bought the idea that the health of the entire planet It’s not the health of the entire planet that’s at stake. It’s the habitability of the inhabited parts of the planet for humans. The earth will be just fine.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Sure, I'd still stand by my statement making that substitution. I don't think the ecosystem humans specifically depend on can be boiled down to a single metric. We've leaned extremely analytical in modern times but doing so puts us at serious risk of missing the forest for the trees. We have a habit of trying to quantify everything and missing the fact that doing so loses context and greatly increases the risk of over confidence in our ability to understand and intervene with a complex system.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

pydry 3y ago

Politicians have been pushing nuclear power for years. It's 5x more expensive than solar or wind but in America the military hates the idea of not having it around to share costs with. Nuclear subs, nukes, aircraft carriers, etc. need a nuclear industry.

pfdietz 3y ago
I don't think nuclear weapons themselves need a nuclear industry, as in an industry for making nuclear reactors, at least in the major nuclear powers. They already have all the plutonium they need. The US hasn't made new plutonium for nuclear weapons in decades.
- pydry 3y ago
  A lot of the supply chain and skills base is shared between the nuclear military and commercial nuclear. The military's needs are not quite as straightforward as "take plutonium put it in a box". They need nuclear engineers, parts for PWRs, etc. This is why the US government pushes nuclear power heavily in spite of it 5xing the cost of civilian electricity.

pstuart 3y ago

I am pro-nuclear as a concept but it seems to not economically viable -- look to the last plant to open in the US - Vogel being billions and over budget and in no way cost-competitive: https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-... If nuclear is going to ever succeed economically it would have to be via Small Modular Reactors that can be built en mass rather than bespoke power plants. And even there, the price pressure from renewables is making that debatable. An irony here is that nuclear promised energy that was "too cheap to measure" but renewables are actually delivering on that.

yawaramin 2y ago
If it's not economically viable then how come countries around the world, from rich to poor, and doing it? Do they just love wasting their money?
- hackerlight 2y ago
  Divide the amount of new renewable capacity by new nuclear capacity if that's your actual argument.
  - yawaramin 2y ago
    Why capacity and not actual MWh generated electricity?
    - hackerlight 2y ago
      That is a better metric. So, what do your calculations show for 2023?

pfdietz 3y ago

The focus is on decarbonization, which is why the focus is on renewables, as they are the fastest, least cost route to decarbonization (along with efficiency). Nuclear? Why would you want to slow down decarbonization and make the process more expensive? It's almost as if your words of focus on decarbonization are lies.

yawaramin 2y ago
> the fastest, least cost route to decarbonization Just wondering, did you read the article? The problem it describes with inverters is just one out of an array of problems with renewables (leaving aside hydro). Cost overruns due to electrical grid incompatibility, hardware instability, operation in bad weather conditions (almost certainly a fact of life in the near future), unprofitability, reliance on China for critical parts of the solar power supply chain...the problems with renewables are endless. Nuclear? Proven technology that's expensive mostly because it's over-regulated beyond all rationality, and because the US foolishly neglected its large-scale manufacturing capabilities and let them atrophy and move offshore. The supply shocks that were felt in the US and Canada because they had to wait for masks from China when the pandemic started, should make this blindingly obvious. You'll also note that every country not controlled by the insane anti-science green lobby is seriously looking at, and many are building, nuclear power plants as fast as they can. UAE, South Korea, China, India, Bangladesh just to name a few. > your words of focus on decarbonization are lies. Am I living in a parallel reality to you, because in my reality France and Ontario, Canada are examples of two regions which achieved deep decarbonization. Guess what they have in common? Most of their power comes from nuclear energy. Guess what happened to German carbon emissions after they shut down their nuclear plants and started up their coal-fired plants? Shocker! Carbon emissions went up. But sure, good luck in your parallel world where actual demonstrated decarbonization is nothing but lies.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Nuclear's issues are far more intractable than renewables. The issues you list with renewables are relatively benign. Inverters? Do you really want to argue electronic devices don't improve and cheapen dramatically over time? Grid compatibility? Nuclear needs a grid too. "Hardware instability"? Like, when a GW+ of capacity suddenly drops off the grid and you have to be ready for that? That's a chronic problem of nuclear. China? I thought they were the go-to party to point to to show nuclear wasn't dead. Nuclear is proven in the sense it has a proven propensity for massive cost overruns. Renewable projects typically come in within 10% of projected cost (at least before overall inflation picked up, but that's affecting everything.) Lots of countries are "looking at" nuclear. Looking is cheap, building is not. Experience with nuclear is showing that building more reactors is a tragic, often hideously expensive mistake. Even in China, nuclear is experiencing considerable friction compared to their renewable rollout. That places like France and Ontario achieved deep decarbonization in the now distant past matters little. Nuclear was competitive with or cheaper than solar and wind back then. Now, it's not, because solar and wind (and storage) have improved so much. You can't go home again; you can't revert to an imagined happy nuclear childhood either. France is finding this out. The notion that an "anti-science green lobby" is holding back nuclear is risible nonsense. This is a go-to conspiracy theory nuclear fans use to avoid the reality. Nuclear is being held back by its own failure to compete. Look at what has happened with costs for new nuclear construction: in the US, in the UK, in France, in Finland, even in the UAE and China (where costs have been high relative to renewable options.) This despite favorable sentiment toward nuclear in the places where they're still trying. Carbon emissions in Germany have gone down even with the nuclear phaseout, btw. I'm sure you can find a year somewhere when they went up, but that's akin to the argument of climate change deniers looking at statistical blips and saying global warming has ended. You yourself are living in a fantasyland where you desperately have to grasp at mental straws to protect yourself from the reality of nuclear's failure. This self deception will rapidly become impossible to sustain in the near future as renewables and storage continue their rampage to domination of the world energy system. Their prices continue to crash, and by the time the world is renewable powered their demonstrated experience effects will likely make them far cheaper than nuclear could ever hope to be. Solar, for example, will likely fall to under $0.01/kWh in the sunniest locations.