3 ms·

When it comes to power, solar could leave nuclear in the shade

2 points by dotcoma 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
This is a classic linear optimisation/operations-research issue. Its the best-fit problem for time to deliver, cost per kilowatt, distribution, and the time series of demand, against existing capital investment plans for non-nuclear energy sources. (fully committed existing investments as well as new clean builds where they haven't broken ground) There is little doubt that in land-area, power-density, and constancy of supply Nuclear beats all other choices. Thats because the energy inherent inside atomic bonding is immense, compared to chemical forms of energy we're able to use burning things. How else could the sun radiate so much heat energy into us, as well as the RF we can see, if it wasn't a giant thermonuclear fission reactor 24/7. The thing is, that despite nuclear power stations being very dense and productive, they cannot compete with solar and wind, for dollar spent RIGHT NOW energy production RIGHT NOW. Dollar for dollar, the same investment made into batteries, wind and solar produces energy we can use now, sufficient to the need. A typical wind and solar deployment has a 4-5y build time and is productive inside that time, if permitted. A typical nuclear build into an economy with NO EXISTING NUCLEAR is a 10-15 year build, and delivers no energy until the end of the build time. Nobody disputes in theory, you can make one faster. The problem is, we've never made one in this economy. There is simply no evidence to support an argument we will build substantive nuclear power faster than 10 to 15 years, and there is ample evidence we can build gigawatts of solar and wind and batteries, in 4 to 5 years. We know this because we're doing it now. (we have a small swimming pool reactor for medical atomics and research. it doesn't inform power engineering at all) We get more energy in the future, if we build nuclear, but we also get burdens such as the constancy when our demand patterns in the light of existing solar and wind, and known future solar and wind, are anything but constant. To make nuclear viable in the Australian market (which is what the abc.net.au is talking about) we need to invent a time machine and build it 30 years ago. Starting from here, with existing committed solar and wind and battery build outs, even on an optimistic 10 year horizon, it won't be the answer. No amount of "what about night time" and "what about days of no wind and cloud" alters the problem. Nuclear won't be economically viable when it arrives, if we continue to build out non-nuclear solar/wind because the capacity built, and available in storage, along with demand management means there is no hole for Nuclear to fill that it suits. Gas peaker plants are more likely to be useful. Most pro-nuclear people know this btw. Its "because I want it" and "because of other effects in the Australian political landscape" not actually "because Nuclear is the answer"
- audunw 2y ago
  I’d like to add that there’s a negative externality with nuclear power that’s rarely talked about: they’re thermal power plants. They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. All existing thermal power plants is only a few percent of the effect of green house gases. Nothing to worry about right now. But it means we can’t really replace all thermal power plants, and scale up energy production massively beyond that with nuclear, without creating a global warming effect that we simply can’t afford in a future when the world is already on the bring of collapse. Renewables - if we do a balanced mix, perhaps with more geothermal, wave and tidal in the future - could potentially scale the world’s energy production by 10x. Perhaps even 100x. You can’t really say that about nuclear thermal power (Helions power plant may be an exception). I will say that there’s one possible way out: radiate the heat directly to space with radiative panels. But that would essentially be reverse solar power plants and the area advantage would disappear. I also feel like advanced geothermal is threatening to eliminate nuclear power completely if the maser/plasma drilling techniques being researched works out. It’s a bit out there, but not much more than the molten salt and thorium solutions that nuclear proponents say will solve some of the critical issues around uranium fuels. I like nuclear technology though. I still support R&D there. Should hedge our bets.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. Do they? By all means accurately work through the numbers here please. Let me stress, I'm neither for nor against nuclear, but I do have an issue with poor arguments. Global warming (AGW) is not a problem caused by humans putting out more heat. Daily human generated heat is small by comparison with daily heating of the planet by the sun (by what magnitude? Exercise for those with an in interest). AGW is almost entirely due to increased insulation - more greenhouse gases cause more of the heat generated second hand from incoming visible light to remain trapped in the low atmosphere | earth | sea layer.
    - 2y ago

2 points by dotcoma 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

This is a classic linear optimisation/operations-research issue. Its the best-fit problem for time to deliver, cost per kilowatt, distribution, and the time series of demand, against existing capital investment plans for non-nuclear energy sources. (fully committed existing investments as well as new clean builds where they haven't broken ground) There is little doubt that in land-area, power-density, and constancy of supply Nuclear beats all other choices. Thats because the energy inherent inside atomic bonding is immense, compared to chemical forms of energy we're able to use burning things. How else could the sun radiate so much heat energy into us, as well as the RF we can see, if it wasn't a giant thermonuclear fission reactor 24/7. The thing is, that despite nuclear power stations being very dense and productive, they cannot compete with solar and wind, for dollar spent RIGHT NOW energy production RIGHT NOW. Dollar for dollar, the same investment made into batteries, wind and solar produces energy we can use now, sufficient to the need. A typical wind and solar deployment has a 4-5y build time and is productive inside that time, if permitted. A typical nuclear build into an economy with NO EXISTING NUCLEAR is a 10-15 year build, and delivers no energy until the end of the build time. Nobody disputes in theory, you can make one faster. The problem is, we've never made one in this economy. There is simply no evidence to support an argument we will build substantive nuclear power faster than 10 to 15 years, and there is ample evidence we can build gigawatts of solar and wind and batteries, in 4 to 5 years. We know this because we're doing it now. (we have a small swimming pool reactor for medical atomics and research. it doesn't inform power engineering at all) We get more energy in the future, if we build nuclear, but we also get burdens such as the constancy when our demand patterns in the light of existing solar and wind, and known future solar and wind, are anything but constant. To make nuclear viable in the Australian market (which is what the abc.net.au is talking about) we need to invent a time machine and build it 30 years ago. Starting from here, with existing committed solar and wind and battery build outs, even on an optimistic 10 year horizon, it won't be the answer. No amount of "what about night time" and "what about days of no wind and cloud" alters the problem. Nuclear won't be economically viable when it arrives, if we continue to build out non-nuclear solar/wind because the capacity built, and available in storage, along with demand management means there is no hole for Nuclear to fill that it suits. Gas peaker plants are more likely to be useful. Most pro-nuclear people know this btw. Its "because I want it" and "because of other effects in the Australian political landscape" not actually "because Nuclear is the answer"

audunw 2y ago
I’d like to add that there’s a negative externality with nuclear power that’s rarely talked about: they’re thermal power plants. They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. All existing thermal power plants is only a few percent of the effect of green house gases. Nothing to worry about right now. But it means we can’t really replace all thermal power plants, and scale up energy production massively beyond that with nuclear, without creating a global warming effect that we simply can’t afford in a future when the world is already on the bring of collapse. Renewables - if we do a balanced mix, perhaps with more geothermal, wave and tidal in the future - could potentially scale the world’s energy production by 10x. Perhaps even 100x. You can’t really say that about nuclear thermal power (Helions power plant may be an exception). I will say that there’s one possible way out: radiate the heat directly to space with radiative panels. But that would essentially be reverse solar power plants and the area advantage would disappear. I also feel like advanced geothermal is threatening to eliminate nuclear power completely if the maser/plasma drilling techniques being researched works out. It’s a bit out there, but not much more than the molten salt and thorium solutions that nuclear proponents say will solve some of the critical issues around uranium fuels. I like nuclear technology though. I still support R&D there. Should hedge our bets.
- defrost 2y ago
  > They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. Do they? By all means accurately work through the numbers here please. Let me stress, I'm neither for nor against nuclear, but I do have an issue with poor arguments. Global warming (AGW) is not a problem caused by humans putting out more heat. Daily human generated heat is small by comparison with daily heating of the planet by the sun (by what magnitude? Exercise for those with an in interest). AGW is almost entirely due to increased insulation - more greenhouse gases cause more of the heat generated second hand from incoming visible light to remain trapped in the low atmosphere | earth | sea layer.
  - 2y ago