4 ms·

> This is so funny to see, and great to see said, because for decades I ran into nuclear proponents (not engineers or workers, just people into the politics) th

> This is so funny to see, and great to see said, because for decades I ran into nuclear proponents (not engineers or workers, just people into the politics) that said that nuclear was the "only" way to combat climate change The argument that the grid should be 100% nuclear was never really viable. To make it work you would need nuclear to be cheap, so it could be overbuilt to cover hourly and seasonal variation in load. That's theoretically possible, a nuclear reactor is basically a box of hot rocks used to make steam. Large reactors use turbines because they're more efficient, but you can also use steam to run a piston engine and then your cost is approximately the same as a diesel generator only you don't have to buy diesel, just exchange the box of hot rocks for a new one every decade or two. The regulatory environment is not such that this is a thing, however, and then overbuilding nuclear is too expensive. But that's assuming you want to replace the whole grid with nuclear. Any proposal to replace the whole grid with a single generation technology is naive, because the premise would have to be that it's better than all other forms of generation in all contexts. Which isn't true for anything. The big advantage of solar is that it's cheap, if you don't care about consistency -- and sometimes you don't. Solar is great for charging electric cars because they have built-in batteries and then the intermittency doesn't matter. It's pretty good for air conditioning load because that tracks solar output pretty closely. Nuclear is not going to be competitive for those things. But the reverse is true as well. You want to use solar to drive heat pumps at night in winter in regions far from the equator? That's a bad fit, and so is anything else with intermittent power output because if the power goes out people freeze to death. The answer is to build nuclear reactors to power heat pumps and provide cogeneration and build solar to charge electric cars and run air conditioners, instead of trying to do everything with one technology.

epistasis 2y ago
Even France didn't get to full replacement of the grid with nuclear, but they got 90% of the way their. Our current mix of tech, even without new nuclear, will get us to 90% decarbonized easily. What we have now that we didn't have 50 years ago is super cheap storage. That's a complete revolution in how to manage grids, and I don't think that the current grid planners and ops know what to do with it yet. You can use storage to avoid transmission congestion, you can use it to time shift, you can use it to avoid distribution node upgrades when you deploy it behind the meter. There are soooooo many ways that storage can reduce grid costs and make it more economically efficient. The challenge is that nearly all grid decisions are made by people that have incentive to keep grid costs as high as possible. We need a new economic and regulatory framework in order to see the benefits of this new technology.
- adrianN 2y ago
  France is 70% nuclear, not 90.
bruce511 2y ago
I buy your argument absent innovations and cost reductions in the storage space. Now granted most of the monthly articles we see on new battery technology don't come to anything, but there have been steady gains and its an area that is far from optimal yet. Sodium ion batteries for example could change the landscape a lot. On the one hand we have nuclear, and that's technically possible today, but comes with significant political challenges. I suspect that a game-changer in the storage game has more chance than nuclear actually being built. I also think a more global grid is doable. That also has political implications, and its a large project, but the internet (ie a globally connected network) shows what can be done in relatively short order.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > I buy your argument absent innovations and cost reductions in the storage space. Now consider the alternatives if we want to decarbonize heating. Nuclear -- really anything -- takes a while to build, so if we don't start building it now and then the storage technology doesn't materialize, we're screwed. And what happens if we build new nuclear and then the storage technology does materialize? Well, it's not going to come at the expense of solar, because we'll have to build tons and tons of solar just in order to electrify transportation and apply it in the other contexts where it's the most advantageous. The nuclear plants would be in addition to that, and be replacing coal and natural gas to provide baseload and energy for heating. So the medium-term effect would just be to replace coal and gas faster. Then if the storage technology does materialize, it would still take decades after it does to manufacture enough of it to replace the rest of the grid. So the new nuclear plants then operate for 30-50 years while that happens, instead of running for 50-100 years if it doesn't, and instead of coal and natural gas plants continuing to operate during that time if we don't build the nuclear plants. Which would be a big problem if that's 100 years and still no advantage even if it's 30.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    There's a lot of forward looking in your assessment there. And clearly predicting the future is tricky. Your argument makes sense if things happen on decade long timeliness. But solar rollout I'd happening at insane speeds already, and accelerating. The current storage using today's tech is growing on a steep curve. If sodium-ion becomes a thing it'll explode in production and demand. (The speed with which China and others can build factories will make your eyes water.) So it all comes down to your personal fortune. Are you willing to take the economic bet, and spend your billions on nuclear? Or would you rather someone else go down that road, and you make the safer financial choice? economically from a capital point of view, the goal is to get a return. Not generate 24x7 power. And the economics of nuclear are terrible.
kragen 2y ago
Passivhaus is probably a cheaper solution than nuclear-powered heat pumps for keeping people from freezing to death far from the equator. Outside of the Arctic Circle, passive solar gain is always a potential solution, though inside cities it may not be viable. And most of the Arctic and Antarctic have plenty of wind power available. Nuclear reactors are steam engines. Steam engines used to be piston engines, but they switched to turbines because, as I understand it, turbines are cheaper. I'm not sure why piston engines are still used for internal combustion, but I suspect it may be a question of faster ramp rates — more important for peeling out of a stop light than for your power grid. But ships are commonly propelled by large two-stroke diesel engines, and ramp rates are not much of a concern there. Such engines made by Wärtsilä are reportedly comparable to turbines in their efficiency and priced competitively with turbine generators for small electric power plants. However, neither turbine-powered generators nor piston-engine-powered generators are priced low enough to compete with solar or wind.

epistasis 2y ago

Even France didn't get to full replacement of the grid with nuclear, but they got 90% of the way their. Our current mix of tech, even without new nuclear, will get us to 90% decarbonized easily. What we have now that we didn't have 50 years ago is super cheap storage. That's a complete revolution in how to manage grids, and I don't think that the current grid planners and ops know what to do with it yet. You can use storage to avoid transmission congestion, you can use it to time shift, you can use it to avoid distribution node upgrades when you deploy it behind the meter. There are soooooo many ways that storage can reduce grid costs and make it more economically efficient. The challenge is that nearly all grid decisions are made by people that have incentive to keep grid costs as high as possible. We need a new economic and regulatory framework in order to see the benefits of this new technology.

adrianN 2y ago
France is 70% nuclear, not 90.

bruce511 2y ago

I buy your argument absent innovations and cost reductions in the storage space. Now granted most of the monthly articles we see on new battery technology don't come to anything, but there have been steady gains and its an area that is far from optimal yet. Sodium ion batteries for example could change the landscape a lot. On the one hand we have nuclear, and that's technically possible today, but comes with significant political challenges. I suspect that a game-changer in the storage game has more chance than nuclear actually being built. I also think a more global grid is doable. That also has political implications, and its a large project, but the internet (ie a globally connected network) shows what can be done in relatively short order.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> I buy your argument absent innovations and cost reductions in the storage space. Now consider the alternatives if we want to decarbonize heating. Nuclear -- really anything -- takes a while to build, so if we don't start building it now and then the storage technology doesn't materialize, we're screwed. And what happens if we build new nuclear and then the storage technology does materialize? Well, it's not going to come at the expense of solar, because we'll have to build tons and tons of solar just in order to electrify transportation and apply it in the other contexts where it's the most advantageous. The nuclear plants would be in addition to that, and be replacing coal and natural gas to provide baseload and energy for heating. So the medium-term effect would just be to replace coal and gas faster. Then if the storage technology does materialize, it would still take decades after it does to manufacture enough of it to replace the rest of the grid. So the new nuclear plants then operate for 30-50 years while that happens, instead of running for 50-100 years if it doesn't, and instead of coal and natural gas plants continuing to operate during that time if we don't build the nuclear plants. Which would be a big problem if that's 100 years and still no advantage even if it's 30.
- bruce511 2y ago
  There's a lot of forward looking in your assessment there. And clearly predicting the future is tricky. Your argument makes sense if things happen on decade long timeliness. But solar rollout I'd happening at insane speeds already, and accelerating. The current storage using today's tech is growing on a steep curve. If sodium-ion becomes a thing it'll explode in production and demand. (The speed with which China and others can build factories will make your eyes water.) So it all comes down to your personal fortune. Are you willing to take the economic bet, and spend your billions on nuclear? Or would you rather someone else go down that road, and you make the safer financial choice? economically from a capital point of view, the goal is to get a return. Not generate 24x7 power. And the economics of nuclear are terrible.

kragen 2y ago

Passivhaus is probably a cheaper solution than nuclear-powered heat pumps for keeping people from freezing to death far from the equator. Outside of the Arctic Circle, passive solar gain is always a potential solution, though inside cities it may not be viable. And most of the Arctic and Antarctic have plenty of wind power available. Nuclear reactors are steam engines. Steam engines used to be piston engines, but they switched to turbines because, as I understand it, turbines are cheaper. I'm not sure why piston engines are still used for internal combustion, but I suspect it may be a question of faster ramp rates — more important for peeling out of a stop light than for your power grid. But ships are commonly propelled by large two-stroke diesel engines, and ramp rates are not much of a concern there. Such engines made by Wärtsilä are reportedly comparable to turbines in their efficiency and priced competitively with turbine generators for small electric power plants. However, neither turbine-powered generators nor piston-engine-powered generators are priced low enough to compete with solar or wind.