4 ms·

5 hours of storage and a 98.6% renewables system. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewable-grid-is-readily-achievable-and-affordable/ https://

5 hours of storage and a 98.6% renewables system. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewable-grid-is-readily-achievable-and-affordable/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewable-gr... Investing in nuclear power today is an insane prospect when the energy market is being reshaped at this speed. In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy. This will only worsen the nuclear business case as renewable expansion continues, today being a bonanza fueled by finally finding an energy source cheaper than fossil fuel. Nuclear power is essentially pissing against the wind hoping the 1960s returns.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> nuclear power today is an insane prospect when the energy market is being reshaped at this speed We’re still more than a decade away from having enough batteries to make this shift. Again, excluding EVs and AI. That’s why we’re reänimating coal plants and building new gas turbines. I’d also love to see the numbers on that simulation going from 98.6% coverage to what we expect from a modern grid. (And if the balance is provided by gas or something else.) It should surprise nobody that going from 1 sigma to 2 can cost as much as 2 to 3, even if the percentage gap is much smaller. > Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy Europe has invested €1.5tn into new gas infrastructure. That doesn’t go poor without a fight and collateral damage.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  A study recently found that a nuclear powered grid to be vastly more expensive than a renewable grid when looking at total system cost. Nuclear power needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system. Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels. We get enormously more value of the money simply by building renewables. The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Nuclear power needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system. Only if you don't care about reliability.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Seems like you didn’t read the quote from the abstract. Here’s the relevant part: > with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        I call BS on that.
        acdha 2y ago
        You’re asking us to trust your gut reaction over a peer-reviewed study. Do you have any qualifications or experience in the field?
        cyberax 2y ago
        Sorry, was writing on a mobile. Here's a more detailed explanation why it's pure BS. Because it's simply magic thinking. They postulate a "future fully sector-coupled system" and then say that if this somehow magics into existance, then everything's peachy. Basically, "a sector-coupled system" allows transforming excess power into something useful (district heating, hydrogen, steel, etc.), and shedding the load and/or providing some power back when there's not enough generated power available. In other words, if you solve the problem of providing 1 month of energy storage for Germany and Denmark, then renewable energy is basically free. Duh. The problem is that "sector-coupled systems" don't exist, and their creation will result in far, far, far, far more expenses than building fucking PWRs.
        ViewTrick1002 2y ago
- ckdarby 2y ago
  In this context, what is a "modern grid"?
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  > We’re still more than a decade away from having enough batteries to make this shift. A decade to have significant amounts of battery storage is actually a pretty optimistic timeline compared to nuclear. Nuclear plant construction times are on the order of a decade or (realistically) two decades in the West, if you include planning. In China they're managing 7 years, but their nuclear buildouts, while impressive, aren't trending an upward path when compared to renewables (see chart here [1].) SMRs might change this, but they're years from leaving "research" status and entering the mass-production/learning curves that could make them cost competitive. This doesn't make me happy. If I thought nuclear was viable on the timelines we have to dampen climate change, I'd be 100% in favor of it. If we could assemble the political will to raise taxes and build nuclear at "wartime" speeds, I'd say go for it. I'm also very much in favor of SMR development, just not willing to bet the house on it. As it stands, there isn't anywhere near enough nuclear power in the planning pipeline for nuclear to matter much on a 20 year timeline. In any case, we are not going to a 100% renewable/battery grid in 10 years. The first goal is to get renewables to 90-95% or more of power generation, massively overbuilt with short-term battery storage backed by intermittent fossil fuels for the remaining 5-10%. This will represent a massive reduction in emissions. The last 5-10% will have to be completed over the next couple of decades, and the increasing battery production trend gives hope that it can be. The worst problem with existing nuclear is that with a 15-20 year planning/construction timeline and the current molasses build rate, new nuclear plants will arrive right at the moment when cheap storage is eating the economic use-cases that make them financially viable. [1] https://cleantechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/China-renewables-nuclear.webp https://cleantechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/China-r...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > * Nuclear plant construction times are on the order of a decade or (realistically) two decades in the West, if you include planning* Sure. Forecasting twenty years out is tough. But our forecasts out 10 years show the power crunch easing to almost no degree--we'll still likely be making the same tradeoff then as now. (And, I suspect, still filling the gap with gas in teh west.) You're broadly correct: we need to build faster. There is no reason we can't build a large plant in under a decade and an SMR in a few years. The latter is what Google is experimenting with here. It's a long shot. But so is hoping battery production scales the orders of magnitude necessary for it to become a utlity backbone over the next decades. > first goal is to get renewables to 90-95% or more of power generation, massively overbuilt with short-term battery storage We don't have the battery pipeline. What we're repeatedly getting is renewables plus gas generators. There is no world in which you put down trillions of dollars of gas infrastructure and then poof it in a few years because it's no longer needed.
chickenbig 2y ago
> In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy. This is happening because of subsidies given to renewables (renewable energy certificates, net metering, guaranteed feed in prices, CFD) plus policies at the national and EU level (EU Renewable Energy Directive). Take away these policies and you are left with a low quality (intermittent) energy source that requires far more expensive storage to produce power when it is needed.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  A study recently found that a nuclear powered grid to be vastly more expensive than a renewable grid when looking at total system cost. Nuclear power needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system. Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels. We get enormously more value of the money simply by building renewables. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Which is confirmed by Sweden continuing its renewable buildout with both the cheapest electricity prices in Europe and no subsidies on the books for new renewable production.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved Cost assumptions in table 2 Offshore wind 1.9M EUR/MW, 1.67% O&M, 30 year life at 0.51 capacity factor Onshore wind 1.03M EUR/MW, 2.51% O&M, 30 year life at 0.37 capacity factor Solar PV 0.6M EUR/MW, 1.50% O&M, 40 year life at 0.14 capacity factor So they are claiming nuclear (which has a > 0.9 capacity factor in Finland, and 60 year life) needs to have an investment cost between onshore and offshore wind to make sense. Due to energy system constraints, there might be reasons for down regulating the nuclear power stations, thus as an output the capacity factor might be lower than 90%, but never higher. The study allows for nuclear power to be down regulated to 25% of the maximum load in for instance hours with high wind and solar production. So the authors decided that the non-dispatchable wind/solar has market priority over nuclear. Hence it is important to pack out the high nuclear scenario with renewables. Also note how the all renewables scenario adds biogas (presumably from all the pig slurry) to firm up demand along with 6GW of inter-connectors to friendly neighbours. By way of contrast, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Nuclear-Liftoff-Update-Summary-Presentation.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Nuclea... Page 5 forecasts a 37% reduction in costs when nuclear is part of the energy mix in California. Edit :- Closer analysis of the high nuclear with district heating scenario (figure 4, in the supplementary material) reveals a total electrical demand of just under 10,000MW (unflexible + heating + transport). Note that the authors have chosen to represent nuclear as a continuous 6,686MW of power (rather than the nameplate capacity of 7,400MW).
Moldoteck 2y ago
In eu France is the biggest net exporter in the EU while Germany with huge renewable capacity net imported 20+TWh this year. Look how Germany's generation was yesterday to get a sneak peek
- atwrk 2y ago
  This is only because it is profitable for Germany to do so, not because of lack of capacity. Germany imports energy when there is low demand (and price) and exports when there is high demand (and price). Look at this chart: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power_trading/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&dataBase=trade_sum_euro_mwh&partsum=1&year=2023 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power_trading/chart.htm?l=...
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    another reason is to fire up coal less. Again, look at yesterday generation. They were not able to satisfy local demand with renewables and bumped up coal+gas by a lot. Also, if you look at the numbers - the price difference isn't that huge but trade difference is huge. This year export price is less than 1$ more than import. Problem is Germany net imported 25TWh so they are still in a big trade deficit and it continues to grow considering dunkelflaute is ahead
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Yes, Germany is targeting a 80% renewable electricity mix by 2030 and 100% by 2035. They have no illusions about being perfect today. Their current status is 65% renewable for 2024. Maybe stop looking at instants and start looking at the larger picture: keeping our cumulative emissions as low as possible. Starting a nuclear construction project which won't deliver any decarbonization for 15-20 years is accepting large cumulative emissions.
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        they don't target 100% by 2035. They want to close last coal plant by 2038 which is a bit optimistic looking at yesterday's generation. For gas it's even worse - the plan is totally unrealistic and their planned h2 ready plants that'll use gas initially, will probably still use a mix with gas when/if green h2 becomes reality or they'll replace the generators with pure h2(unlikely) which has huge nox emissions due to high burn temperature Larger image is yesterday's generation + https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/germany-s-climate-transition-costs-to-spiral-as-subsidies-double https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/germany-s... and https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-special-account-488-bln-power-grid-expansion-2024-03-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-specia... And nuclear construction can be much faster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant or you can look at projects from China

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> nuclear power today is an insane prospect when the energy market is being reshaped at this speed We’re still more than a decade away from having enough batteries to make this shift. Again, excluding EVs and AI. That’s why we’re reänimating coal plants and building new gas turbines. I’d also love to see the numbers on that simulation going from 98.6% coverage to what we expect from a modern grid. (And if the balance is provided by gas or something else.) It should surprise nobody that going from 1 sigma to 2 can cost as much as 2 to 3, even if the percentage gap is much smaller. > Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy Europe has invested €1.5tn into new gas infrastructure. That doesn’t go poor without a fight and collateral damage.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
A study recently found that a nuclear powered grid to be vastly more expensive than a renewable grid when looking at total system cost. Nuclear power needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system. Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels. We get enormously more value of the money simply by building renewables. The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Nuclear power needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system. Only if you don't care about reliability.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Seems like you didn’t read the quote from the abstract. Here’s the relevant part: > with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      I call BS on that.
      - acdha 2y ago
        You’re asking us to trust your gut reaction over a peer-reviewed study. Do you have any qualifications or experience in the field?
        cyberax 2y ago
        Sorry, was writing on a mobile. Here's a more detailed explanation why it's pure BS. Because it's simply magic thinking. They postulate a "future fully sector-coupled system" and then say that if this somehow magics into existance, then everything's peachy. Basically, "a sector-coupled system" allows transforming excess power into something useful (district heating, hydrogen, steel, etc.), and shedding the load and/or providing some power back when there's not enough generated power available. In other words, if you solve the problem of providing 1 month of energy storage for Germany and Denmark, then renewable energy is basically free. Duh. The problem is that "sector-coupled systems" don't exist, and their creation will result in far, far, far, far more expenses than building fucking PWRs.
        ViewTrick1002 2y ago
ckdarby 2y ago
In this context, what is a "modern grid"?
matthewdgreen 2y ago
> We’re still more than a decade away from having enough batteries to make this shift. A decade to have significant amounts of battery storage is actually a pretty optimistic timeline compared to nuclear. Nuclear plant construction times are on the order of a decade or (realistically) two decades in the West, if you include planning. In China they're managing 7 years, but their nuclear buildouts, while impressive, aren't trending an upward path when compared to renewables (see chart here [1].) SMRs might change this, but they're years from leaving "research" status and entering the mass-production/learning curves that could make them cost competitive. This doesn't make me happy. If I thought nuclear was viable on the timelines we have to dampen climate change, I'd be 100% in favor of it. If we could assemble the political will to raise taxes and build nuclear at "wartime" speeds, I'd say go for it. I'm also very much in favor of SMR development, just not willing to bet the house on it. As it stands, there isn't anywhere near enough nuclear power in the planning pipeline for nuclear to matter much on a 20 year timeline. In any case, we are not going to a 100% renewable/battery grid in 10 years. The first goal is to get renewables to 90-95% or more of power generation, massively overbuilt with short-term battery storage backed by intermittent fossil fuels for the remaining 5-10%. This will represent a massive reduction in emissions. The last 5-10% will have to be completed over the next couple of decades, and the increasing battery production trend gives hope that it can be. The worst problem with existing nuclear is that with a 15-20 year planning/construction timeline and the current molasses build rate, new nuclear plants will arrive right at the moment when cheap storage is eating the economic use-cases that make them financially viable. [1] https://cleantechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/China-renewables-nuclear.webp https://cleantechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/China-r...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > * Nuclear plant construction times are on the order of a decade or (realistically) two decades in the West, if you include planning* Sure. Forecasting twenty years out is tough. But our forecasts out 10 years show the power crunch easing to almost no degree--we'll still likely be making the same tradeoff then as now. (And, I suspect, still filling the gap with gas in teh west.) You're broadly correct: we need to build faster. There is no reason we can't build a large plant in under a decade and an SMR in a few years. The latter is what Google is experimenting with here. It's a long shot. But so is hoping battery production scales the orders of magnitude necessary for it to become a utlity backbone over the next decades. > first goal is to get renewables to 90-95% or more of power generation, massively overbuilt with short-term battery storage We don't have the battery pipeline. What we're repeatedly getting is renewables plus gas generators. There is no world in which you put down trillions of dollars of gas infrastructure and then poof it in a few years because it's no longer needed.

chickenbig 2y ago

> In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy. This is happening because of subsidies given to renewables (renewable energy certificates, net metering, guaranteed feed in prices, CFD) plus policies at the national and EU level (EU Renewable Energy Directive). Take away these policies and you are left with a low quality (intermittent) energy source that requires far more expensive storage to produce power when it is needed.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
A study recently found that a nuclear powered grid to be vastly more expensive than a renewable grid when looking at total system cost. Nuclear power needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system. Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels. We get enormously more value of the money simply by building renewables. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Which is confirmed by Sweden continuing its renewable buildout with both the cheapest electricity prices in Europe and no subsidies on the books for new renewable production.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved Cost assumptions in table 2 Offshore wind 1.9M EUR/MW, 1.67% O&M, 30 year life at 0.51 capacity factor Onshore wind 1.03M EUR/MW, 2.51% O&M, 30 year life at 0.37 capacity factor Solar PV 0.6M EUR/MW, 1.50% O&M, 40 year life at 0.14 capacity factor So they are claiming nuclear (which has a > 0.9 capacity factor in Finland, and 60 year life) needs to have an investment cost between onshore and offshore wind to make sense. Due to energy system constraints, there might be reasons for down regulating the nuclear power stations, thus as an output the capacity factor might be lower than 90%, but never higher. The study allows for nuclear power to be down regulated to 25% of the maximum load in for instance hours with high wind and solar production. So the authors decided that the non-dispatchable wind/solar has market priority over nuclear. Hence it is important to pack out the high nuclear scenario with renewables. Also note how the all renewables scenario adds biogas (presumably from all the pig slurry) to firm up demand along with 6GW of inter-connectors to friendly neighbours. By way of contrast, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Nuclear-Liftoff-Update-Summary-Presentation.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Nuclea... Page 5 forecasts a 37% reduction in costs when nuclear is part of the energy mix in California. Edit :- Closer analysis of the high nuclear with district heating scenario (figure 4, in the supplementary material) reveals a total electrical demand of just under 10,000MW (unflexible + heating + transport). Note that the authors have chosen to represent nuclear as a continuous 6,686MW of power (rather than the nameplate capacity of 7,400MW).

Moldoteck 2y ago

In eu France is the biggest net exporter in the EU while Germany with huge renewable capacity net imported 20+TWh this year. Look how Germany's generation was yesterday to get a sneak peek

atwrk 2y ago
This is only because it is profitable for Germany to do so, not because of lack of capacity. Germany imports energy when there is low demand (and price) and exports when there is high demand (and price). Look at this chart: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power_trading/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&dataBase=trade_sum_euro_mwh&partsum=1&year=2023 https://energy-charts.info/charts/power_trading/chart.htm?l=...
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  another reason is to fire up coal less. Again, look at yesterday generation. They were not able to satisfy local demand with renewables and bumped up coal+gas by a lot. Also, if you look at the numbers - the price difference isn't that huge but trade difference is huge. This year export price is less than 1$ more than import. Problem is Germany net imported 25TWh so they are still in a big trade deficit and it continues to grow considering dunkelflaute is ahead
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Yes, Germany is targeting a 80% renewable electricity mix by 2030 and 100% by 2035. They have no illusions about being perfect today. Their current status is 65% renewable for 2024. Maybe stop looking at instants and start looking at the larger picture: keeping our cumulative emissions as low as possible. Starting a nuclear construction project which won't deliver any decarbonization for 15-20 years is accepting large cumulative emissions.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      they don't target 100% by 2035. They want to close last coal plant by 2038 which is a bit optimistic looking at yesterday's generation. For gas it's even worse - the plan is totally unrealistic and their planned h2 ready plants that'll use gas initially, will probably still use a mix with gas when/if green h2 becomes reality or they'll replace the generators with pure h2(unlikely) which has huge nox emissions due to high burn temperature Larger image is yesterday's generation + https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/germany-s-climate-transition-costs-to-spiral-as-subsidies-double https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/germany-s... and https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-special-account-488-bln-power-grid-expansion-2024-03-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-specia... And nuclear construction can be much faster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant or you can look at projects from China