3 ms·

>This is related to a common bad idea, that is, that nuclear should be used to provide backup power when renewables are not available. fundamentally disagree,

>This is related to a common bad idea, that is, that nuclear should be used to provide backup power when renewables are not available. fundamentally disagree, this is taking simple facts and changing the narrative around the facts to make renewables look bad. Renewables are cheaper and faster to invest, build and use. Nuclear is slower and more expensive to invest, build and use. there is a use for nuclear, but common widespread rollout is not it.

pfdietz 2y ago
Making renewables look bad? I was making nuclear look bad. Renewables don't leave any place for new nuclear for the grid.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  I still don't understand how you're expected to replace fossil fuel heating sources with solar. Peak heating demand is in winter and at night, when solar production is at its lowest. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear can be done by you building nuclear plants, using cogeneration (steam pipes) to distribute heat to the population with reasonable distance of the plant and electricity generated by the plant to operate heat pumps for people who live more distance away. To do this reliably with solar you need enough solar generation capacity on the coldest day of the year with the least sunlight to generate an amount of power on the order of the size of the entire existing power grid, just for heating. Then you need to store the majority of it for use at night. Then you need an entirely separate backup system in case it's cloudy for too long, because if solar doesn't generate enough power then people freeze. I've heard suggestions of maintaining an entirely redundant set of traditional fossil fuel generating stations to bring online in the event of undersupply -- these things cost nearly as much by themselves as the nuclear plants. How is that combination supposed to be cheaper? Also, how is it supposed to be built in parallel when battery production capacity is already being consumed to electrify transportation and do peak shaving to allow renewable sources to replace fossil fuels in the existing grid?
  - senectus1 2y ago
    Renewables are not a single/binary solution. They're a mixed environment with storage playing a big part. Ultimately The storage part is actually a huge improvement to existing design with modular design and decentralized layout giving societies DR capability that would be horrendously expensive in the more centralized designs we use now.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Renewables, not just solar. At high latitude, wind is significant, and tends to be stronger in winter. Solar + wind can complement one another. Now, one still needs storage, including potentially weeks-long storage for Dunkelflauten, but that rarely used long period storage use case is handled by e-fuels like hydrogen (turned back to electrical power with turbines or fuel cells). Which brings us to... > these things cost nearly as much by themselves as the nuclear plants. This is completely wrong. A simple cycle turbine power plant is maybe 1/20th the capex per W of a nuclear plant; a combined cycle plant maybe 1/10th. Combustion turbines are amazing. We will also see migration of thermal energy intensive industries to lower latitude places with more sun and less seasonality. Diurnal storage of heat from PV is quite feasible. Sorry Europe, nuclear won't save you. I will also note that 2/3rds of industrial heat demand is at < 300 C, which means heat pumps can be used (particularly if the process has a warm waste heat stream to feed into the heat pumps.) https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-industrial-process-heat.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-industrial-process-heat....
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Renewables, not just solar. But the premise was "solar is getting so cheap". Wind costs more than solar, and is still intermittent so you still need the backup. > A simple cycle turbine power plant is maybe 1/20th the capex per W of a nuclear plant; a combined cycle plant maybe 1/10th. Combustion turbines are amazing. That's just the capex for the plant itself. It doesn't include whatever you're using to produce and store the fuel. The capex to store a week's supply of hydrogen in particular would well exceed the capex for the plant itself. Plus the "operating costs" which largely still exist even if the plant is only operated 1% of the time. It still has to pay for full-time security and maintenance and have a full complement of staff on-call at all times in case the plant has to be brought into service. And many of those costs go up rather than down as usage declines. Right now we have a network for the production and distribution of natural gas which gets funded by domestic use for heating and cooking and existing power plants can tie into those pipelines at minimal incremental cost. If we stop using fossil fuels for heating, now you have to justify the opex on all those pipelines just for the infrequently-used combustion power plants, or you have to build and maintain a different distribution system for the fuel. The low cost thing to do would be to have have a production and distribution system that can replenish the week's worth of fuel over the course of three months, but now you can get a period of undersupply in November and the tanks won't be replenished until spring. Whereas if you want to be able to produce a week's supply of fuel the next week, add another billion+ dollars per GW of capacity for electrolyzers. Even if this still costs less than a nuclear plant, this is the cost of the backup system by itself. You still have to add the cost of the renewable sources to be used the other 99% of the time. And the efficiency advantage if nuclear is used for heating via cogeneration. > We will also see migration of thermal energy intensive industries to lower latitude places with more sun and less seasonality. Industries are fine, the question is how to heat homes in Europe or the northern half of the US.

pfdietz 2y ago

Making renewables look bad? I was making nuclear look bad. Renewables don't leave any place for new nuclear for the grid.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
I still don't understand how you're expected to replace fossil fuel heating sources with solar. Peak heating demand is in winter and at night, when solar production is at its lowest. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear can be done by you building nuclear plants, using cogeneration (steam pipes) to distribute heat to the population with reasonable distance of the plant and electricity generated by the plant to operate heat pumps for people who live more distance away. To do this reliably with solar you need enough solar generation capacity on the coldest day of the year with the least sunlight to generate an amount of power on the order of the size of the entire existing power grid, just for heating. Then you need to store the majority of it for use at night. Then you need an entirely separate backup system in case it's cloudy for too long, because if solar doesn't generate enough power then people freeze. I've heard suggestions of maintaining an entirely redundant set of traditional fossil fuel generating stations to bring online in the event of undersupply -- these things cost nearly as much by themselves as the nuclear plants. How is that combination supposed to be cheaper? Also, how is it supposed to be built in parallel when battery production capacity is already being consumed to electrify transportation and do peak shaving to allow renewable sources to replace fossil fuels in the existing grid?
- senectus1 2y ago
  Renewables are not a single/binary solution. They're a mixed environment with storage playing a big part. Ultimately The storage part is actually a huge improvement to existing design with modular design and decentralized layout giving societies DR capability that would be horrendously expensive in the more centralized designs we use now.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Renewables, not just solar. At high latitude, wind is significant, and tends to be stronger in winter. Solar + wind can complement one another. Now, one still needs storage, including potentially weeks-long storage for Dunkelflauten, but that rarely used long period storage use case is handled by e-fuels like hydrogen (turned back to electrical power with turbines or fuel cells). Which brings us to... > these things cost nearly as much by themselves as the nuclear plants. This is completely wrong. A simple cycle turbine power plant is maybe 1/20th the capex per W of a nuclear plant; a combined cycle plant maybe 1/10th. Combustion turbines are amazing. We will also see migration of thermal energy intensive industries to lower latitude places with more sun and less seasonality. Diurnal storage of heat from PV is quite feasible. Sorry Europe, nuclear won't save you. I will also note that 2/3rds of industrial heat demand is at < 300 C, which means heat pumps can be used (particularly if the process has a warm waste heat stream to feed into the heat pumps.) https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-industrial-process-heat.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-industrial-process-heat....
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Renewables, not just solar. But the premise was "solar is getting so cheap". Wind costs more than solar, and is still intermittent so you still need the backup. > A simple cycle turbine power plant is maybe 1/20th the capex per W of a nuclear plant; a combined cycle plant maybe 1/10th. Combustion turbines are amazing. That's just the capex for the plant itself. It doesn't include whatever you're using to produce and store the fuel. The capex to store a week's supply of hydrogen in particular would well exceed the capex for the plant itself. Plus the "operating costs" which largely still exist even if the plant is only operated 1% of the time. It still has to pay for full-time security and maintenance and have a full complement of staff on-call at all times in case the plant has to be brought into service. And many of those costs go up rather than down as usage declines. Right now we have a network for the production and distribution of natural gas which gets funded by domestic use for heating and cooking and existing power plants can tie into those pipelines at minimal incremental cost. If we stop using fossil fuels for heating, now you have to justify the opex on all those pipelines just for the infrequently-used combustion power plants, or you have to build and maintain a different distribution system for the fuel. The low cost thing to do would be to have have a production and distribution system that can replenish the week's worth of fuel over the course of three months, but now you can get a period of undersupply in November and the tanks won't be replenished until spring. Whereas if you want to be able to produce a week's supply of fuel the next week, add another billion+ dollars per GW of capacity for electrolyzers. Even if this still costs less than a nuclear plant, this is the cost of the backup system by itself. You still have to add the cost of the renewable sources to be used the other 99% of the time. And the efficiency advantage if nuclear is used for heating via cogeneration. > We will also see migration of thermal energy intensive industries to lower latitude places with more sun and less seasonality. Industries are fine, the question is how to heat homes in Europe or the northern half of the US.