3 ms·

> 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 arra

> 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.
- yawaramin 2y ago
  > Do you really want to argue electronic devices don't improve and cheapen dramatically over time? No, I am arguing that people are not taking into account issues with the existing technologies and their capabilities, and instead thoughtlessly rolling out renewables onto the grid, putting people at real risk. You do understand what 'immediate catastrophic grid failure' means, right? > Nuclear needs a grid too. It's the same grid we already have! It was designed for baseload generation which is exactly what nuclear gives you! No costly grid upgrades required! > 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. The 'sudden drop' is exactly what is avoided by nuclear's steady power generation. > Renewable projects typically come in within 10% of projected cost Until you factor in the massive upgrades that will be needed to the grid, the ecological toll of vast solar panel arrays and wind farms, the vast mining requirements for all the minerals needed for these devices, and the end-of-life (20 to 30 years) recycling and disposal costs. Then the picture is not so pretty! > That places like France and Ontario achieved deep decarbonization in the now distant past matters little. Yeah, facts don't matter and only unproven ideologically driven technologies matter. > solar and wind (and storage) have improved so much. Yes, they have improved so much that Texas is at risk of catastrophic grid collapse. Facts have an inconvenient way of intruding on fantasy! > Look at what has happened with costs for new nuclear construction What did happen with costs? UAE has successfully launched their NPP and is planning to build more. Not all costs are money sinks–these NPPs will generate clean power for decades, maybe even a century. They will produce minimal waste that will be safely sequestered and/or reused, and they will have very little ecological footprint. A nuclear power plant is one of the best investments you can make for the future. > 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 Sure, in the future everything will be perfect and all of the problems that people have pointed out will magically go away. And I'm living in fantasy land ;-)

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.

yawaramin 2y ago
> Do you really want to argue electronic devices don't improve and cheapen dramatically over time? No, I am arguing that people are not taking into account issues with the existing technologies and their capabilities, and instead thoughtlessly rolling out renewables onto the grid, putting people at real risk. You do understand what 'immediate catastrophic grid failure' means, right? > Nuclear needs a grid too. It's the same grid we already have! It was designed for baseload generation which is exactly what nuclear gives you! No costly grid upgrades required! > 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. The 'sudden drop' is exactly what is avoided by nuclear's steady power generation. > Renewable projects typically come in within 10% of projected cost Until you factor in the massive upgrades that will be needed to the grid, the ecological toll of vast solar panel arrays and wind farms, the vast mining requirements for all the minerals needed for these devices, and the end-of-life (20 to 30 years) recycling and disposal costs. Then the picture is not so pretty! > That places like France and Ontario achieved deep decarbonization in the now distant past matters little. Yeah, facts don't matter and only unproven ideologically driven technologies matter. > solar and wind (and storage) have improved so much. Yes, they have improved so much that Texas is at risk of catastrophic grid collapse. Facts have an inconvenient way of intruding on fantasy! > Look at what has happened with costs for new nuclear construction What did happen with costs? UAE has successfully launched their NPP and is planning to build more. Not all costs are money sinks–these NPPs will generate clean power for decades, maybe even a century. They will produce minimal waste that will be safely sequestered and/or reused, and they will have very little ecological footprint. A nuclear power plant is one of the best investments you can make for the future. > 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 Sure, in the future everything will be perfect and all of the problems that people have pointed out will magically go away. And I'm living in fantasy land ;-)