4 ms·

Which would have moved forward towards completion if the economic calculus made sense. We should of course continue with basic research. But, without some incr

Which would have moved forward towards completion if the economic calculus made sense. We should of course continue with basic research. But, without some incredible breakthrough nuclear power will only serve climate change deniers agenda in delaying the renewable buildout. This is what you sign up for when proposing investing in nuclear power in 2024: > The opposition last week released modelling of its “coal-to-nuclear” plan that would slow the rollout of renewable energy and batteries and instead rely on more fossil fuel generation until a nuclear industry could be developed, mostly after 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coalition-nuclear-plan-will-hit-earth-with-1bn-extra-tonnes-of-co2-before-2050-experts-warn https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coali...

exe34 2y ago
in other words, it's too late to build nuclear, let's bury our heads in the sand and hope somehow we have enough renewable in 20 years and we're not still using the coal/gas.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  The bury our heads in the sand part seems to be you projecting. The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive. > Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems. > 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... Or if you want a more southern latitude you have Australia here: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    It may cost more, but it is constant generation, and we should invest in as many carbon neutral alternatives as possible that are feasible. The fact that you have a political opposition to it because of conservative opportunists using it for their own agenda is irrelevant.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Which is not what any modern grid needs? We need cheap dispatchable power, not horrifically expensive inflexible power. Many grids around the world already spend loads of time with renewables filling 100% of the demand. https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-100-renewable-energy-for-100-days/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-10... That is a down right hostile environment for nuclear power which relies on being able to output at 100% 24/7 all year around to only be horrifically expensive. In the land of infinite resources and infinite time "all of the above" is a viable answer. In the real world we neither have infinite resources nor infinite time to fix climate change. Lets focus our limited resources on what works and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing truly hard areas like aviation, construction, shipping and agriculture.
      - Eisenstein 2y ago
        'Plenty of places' is not all places and you want to completely count out a significant energy generating ability because you are annoyed that it doesn't agree with your politics. If it isn't feasible then they won't build it -- by going around and advocating against it you are doing the same thing that happened in the 70s and 80s -- removing a perfectly valid option for energy that we need and will otherwise be fulfilled in any other way if not provided -- almost always with fossil fuels. If you can guarantee every place for all time will be fine with renewables, I'd like to see it, otherwise, why not step back and let engineers and scientists evaluate instead of grandstanding against an option?

exe34 2y ago

in other words, it's too late to build nuclear, let's bury our heads in the sand and hope somehow we have enough renewable in 20 years and we're not still using the coal/gas.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
The bury our heads in the sand part seems to be you projecting. The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive. > Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems. > 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... Or if you want a more southern latitude you have Australia here: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  It may cost more, but it is constant generation, and we should invest in as many carbon neutral alternatives as possible that are feasible. The fact that you have a political opposition to it because of conservative opportunists using it for their own agenda is irrelevant.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Which is not what any modern grid needs? We need cheap dispatchable power, not horrifically expensive inflexible power. Many grids around the world already spend loads of time with renewables filling 100% of the demand. https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-100-renewable-energy-for-100-days/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-10... That is a down right hostile environment for nuclear power which relies on being able to output at 100% 24/7 all year around to only be horrifically expensive. In the land of infinite resources and infinite time "all of the above" is a viable answer. In the real world we neither have infinite resources nor infinite time to fix climate change. Lets focus our limited resources on what works and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing truly hard areas like aviation, construction, shipping and agriculture.
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      'Plenty of places' is not all places and you want to completely count out a significant energy generating ability because you are annoyed that it doesn't agree with your politics. If it isn't feasible then they won't build it -- by going around and advocating against it you are doing the same thing that happened in the 70s and 80s -- removing a perfectly valid option for energy that we need and will otherwise be fulfilled in any other way if not provided -- almost always with fossil fuels. If you can guarantee every place for all time will be fine with renewables, I'd like to see it, otherwise, why not step back and let engineers and scientists evaluate instead of grandstanding against an option?