4 ms·

That's just not true. But more importantly investing in nuclear now. As long as we don't even have sufficient renewables to constantly power us during the day,

That's just not true. But more importantly investing in nuclear now. As long as we don't even have sufficient renewables to constantly power us during the day, good weather... it has a much higher CO2 reduction impact to invest in renewables than building nuclear power plants.

nine_k 2y ago
What's not true? That Sweden or UK receive less solar radiation than Greece, especially in December? That building a huge transmission line from there (or, better yet, from Sahara) would be a very hard and expensive undertaking? That having enough batteries to sustain, say, 2 days of baseload supply, when it's cloudy and not windy, is hugely expensive, and has never been tried because of that? Well, nuclear is also expensive, but it's partly regulation, partly nuclear being bespoke in many cases, while solar panels currently enjoy enormous economy of scale. I all for nuclear, for the record.
- gocartStatue 2y ago
  They receive less solar radiation, but still some. They both have great conditions for offshore wind. Also all for nuclear, but decentralized renewables are great.
- t43562 2y ago
  Nuclear is a total disaster recently. Enormous cost overruns, delayed operation. What reason in hell is there to pour money into that instead of wind? Wind works. Every turbine built adds power - no need to wait decades for the next screwed up nuclear install. I'm a fan of the SMR idea although it turns out that it's less economic than people thought at the smaller sizes anyhow. I'm also very interested in the fusion startups............BUT we have to solve the climate problem now -- yesterday if it were possible.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    We have no problem generating power with wind or solar. We have a problem of doing it in a dependable manner. If there's something to pour money into, it's battery storage, both building much more of it, and developing cheaper variants of it. We need the cost of LiFePO4 batteries to fall as dramatically as the cost of solar panels did. Then renewables will make much bigger inroads into the grid in a lot of places.
    - t43562 2y ago
      https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-to-develop-10-gigawatt-hours-of-long-duration-energy-storage-delivering-over-10-of-uk-ldes-storage-targets/ https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-t... ...for example! "LONDON – 15 October, 2024 – Highview Power, a leading provider of long-duration energy storage (LDES) technology, announced today that its plans to develop four new 2.5GWh power plants in the UK by 2030, have taken a crucial step forward following the launch of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) new investment support scheme. The scheme will use a “cap and floor” mechanism which will unlock the next stage of investment in the multi-billion-pound LDES programme, enabling the technologies vast potential to underpin UK decarbonisation. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will deliver more storage than all of the UK’s existing battery storage, using 100% sustainable technology, with a 40-year lifespan. The addition of these four plants by 2030 means the government’s target to achieve a net zero grid by 2030 is achievable. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will be in Scotland and the other two in England. The first new plant will be located in Hunterston, Scotland."
  - slaw 2y ago
    China, India and Korea can build nuclear power plants without delays and cost overruns. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nuclear-construction https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-...
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      China is installing two orders of magnitude more renewables than nuclear. Judging by what China is doing, renewables have soundly defeated nuclear. It's not clear why they're building any new nuclear plants now. Probably organizational inertia?
      - myrmidon 2y ago
        I think preserving nuclear industry is a decent justification on its own. Especially the whole steam turbine/generator tech is a huge synergy for them (because all their coal plants need basically the same), and gutting suppliers by scaling back nuclear ambitions could have highly detrimental side-effects there. Coal power is still the back-bone of their grid, and provides basically all the dispatchability (for now). I think the big incoming challenge for renewables will be surpassing the 70%-ish percent mark (of produced electricity), because at that point intermittency is gonna become much more challenging (it's an easy problem as long as you can just down-regulate existing plants-- buffering with batteries is significantly more expensive, and they don't have a lot of gas either, which works pretty well for this). I'm pretty confident that battery progress is gonna keep pace, and other countries are already way further in the switch to renewables anyway; China will be able to get free lessions there (e.g. Germany).
        pfdietz 2y ago
        I want to note that the intermittency problems for a 100% renewable grid are not significantly different from a 90% renewable + 10% nuclear grid. Nuclear does very little to help because to make economic sense it has to be kept running most of the time, and so not much capacity can be kept in reserve to deal with renewables dropping out. I'll also note that if renewables have reached 70%, the residual demand will be so uneven that new nuclear won't make any sense, as it won't be possible to keep it running most of the time. Too often renewables will be delivering 100% of demand and nuclear will have no market. As renewables grow, prices become spikier. So what's wanted is some source with low capex that can jump in an exploit these spikes. Gas peakers are an example, but eventually the gas can be something other than natural gas (if NG is taxed for its CO2). Green hydrogen may be the best bet for the 100% renewable end game.

nine_k 2y ago

What's not true? That Sweden or UK receive less solar radiation than Greece, especially in December? That building a huge transmission line from there (or, better yet, from Sahara) would be a very hard and expensive undertaking? That having enough batteries to sustain, say, 2 days of baseload supply, when it's cloudy and not windy, is hugely expensive, and has never been tried because of that? Well, nuclear is also expensive, but it's partly regulation, partly nuclear being bespoke in many cases, while solar panels currently enjoy enormous economy of scale. I all for nuclear, for the record.

gocartStatue 2y ago
They receive less solar radiation, but still some. They both have great conditions for offshore wind. Also all for nuclear, but decentralized renewables are great.
t43562 2y ago
Nuclear is a total disaster recently. Enormous cost overruns, delayed operation. What reason in hell is there to pour money into that instead of wind? Wind works. Every turbine built adds power - no need to wait decades for the next screwed up nuclear install. I'm a fan of the SMR idea although it turns out that it's less economic than people thought at the smaller sizes anyhow. I'm also very interested in the fusion startups............BUT we have to solve the climate problem now -- yesterday if it were possible.
- nine_k 2y ago
  We have no problem generating power with wind or solar. We have a problem of doing it in a dependable manner. If there's something to pour money into, it's battery storage, both building much more of it, and developing cheaper variants of it. We need the cost of LiFePO4 batteries to fall as dramatically as the cost of solar panels did. Then renewables will make much bigger inroads into the grid in a lot of places.
  - t43562 2y ago
    https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-to-develop-10-gigawatt-hours-of-long-duration-energy-storage-delivering-over-10-of-uk-ldes-storage-targets/ https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-t... ...for example! "LONDON – 15 October, 2024 – Highview Power, a leading provider of long-duration energy storage (LDES) technology, announced today that its plans to develop four new 2.5GWh power plants in the UK by 2030, have taken a crucial step forward following the launch of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) new investment support scheme. The scheme will use a “cap and floor” mechanism which will unlock the next stage of investment in the multi-billion-pound LDES programme, enabling the technologies vast potential to underpin UK decarbonisation. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will deliver more storage than all of the UK’s existing battery storage, using 100% sustainable technology, with a 40-year lifespan. The addition of these four plants by 2030 means the government’s target to achieve a net zero grid by 2030 is achievable. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will be in Scotland and the other two in England. The first new plant will be located in Hunterston, Scotland."
- slaw 2y ago
  China, India and Korea can build nuclear power plants without delays and cost overruns. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nuclear-construction https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-...
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    China is installing two orders of magnitude more renewables than nuclear. Judging by what China is doing, renewables have soundly defeated nuclear. It's not clear why they're building any new nuclear plants now. Probably organizational inertia?
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      I think preserving nuclear industry is a decent justification on its own. Especially the whole steam turbine/generator tech is a huge synergy for them (because all their coal plants need basically the same), and gutting suppliers by scaling back nuclear ambitions could have highly detrimental side-effects there. Coal power is still the back-bone of their grid, and provides basically all the dispatchability (for now). I think the big incoming challenge for renewables will be surpassing the 70%-ish percent mark (of produced electricity), because at that point intermittency is gonna become much more challenging (it's an easy problem as long as you can just down-regulate existing plants-- buffering with batteries is significantly more expensive, and they don't have a lot of gas either, which works pretty well for this). I'm pretty confident that battery progress is gonna keep pace, and other countries are already way further in the switch to renewables anyway; China will be able to get free lessions there (e.g. Germany).
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        I want to note that the intermittency problems for a 100% renewable grid are not significantly different from a 90% renewable + 10% nuclear grid. Nuclear does very little to help because to make economic sense it has to be kept running most of the time, and so not much capacity can be kept in reserve to deal with renewables dropping out. I'll also note that if renewables have reached 70%, the residual demand will be so uneven that new nuclear won't make any sense, as it won't be possible to keep it running most of the time. Too often renewables will be delivering 100% of demand and nuclear will have no market. As renewables grow, prices become spikier. So what's wanted is some source with low capex that can jump in an exploit these spikes. Gas peakers are an example, but eventually the gas can be something other than natural gas (if NG is taxed for its CO2). Green hydrogen may be the best bet for the 100% renewable end game.