3 ms·

Europe's future is building more (solar and nuclear) or (gas and coal). Solar scales very quickly. Nuclear very slowly. Have both or suffer the fate that gas an

by 1970-01-01 2y ago

Europe's future is building more (solar and nuclear) or (gas and coal). Solar scales very quickly. Nuclear very slowly. Have both or suffer the fate that gas and coal brings. Politics does a fantastic job of messing simple ideas; it's really that simple to understand this energy crisis.

11235813213455 2y ago
It's crazy to hear the anti-nuclear, or anti-solar people, we obviosuly need a mix of everything, but above all we need to reduce our use
- pjc50 2y ago
  The weird thing is the extent to which pro-nuclear people are against other, cheaper, renewables.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    I think the argument is that cheaper renewables are only cheaper because they externalize the cost of storage to either expensive batteries or tech that doesn't exist yet. Nuclear, otoh, provides constant output (barring maintenance windows) and has the full cost of the plant, from construction to decommissioning, built into it. We've got nuclear submarines that run just fine- the prototypal tiny reactor. Had we built more and smaller nuclear power plants decades ago, we could have averted a lot of emissions and so on and so forth.
    - adrianN 2y ago
      Which part of gas turbines and electrolysis doesn’t exist yet?
      - pjc50 2y ago
        Don't worry, the NIMBYs will come for that just as well as nuclear. https://news.stv.tv/north/plan-for-uks-biggest-hydrogen-plant-rejected https://news.stv.tv/north/plan-for-uks-biggest-hydrogen-plan...
      - ballooney 2y ago
        The electrical efficiency of breaking water to hydrogen, then combusting hydrogen through a turbine to generate electricity, compares extremely disfavourably to most other forms of storage - it takes about 50kWh of electricity to produce 1kg of Hydrogen, and if you propagate that back through a turbine and make some conservative assumptions about electrolyser costs and so on and so on, you're sort of approaching 5x the cost of others forms of renewable electricity to make electricity from stored hydrogen. Of course, if we're building enough renewable capacity that electricity is basically free when it's sunny or windy, that changes the eceonomics and maybe we should all be making hydrogen in that sort of [bumpily]-abundant future. However, storing hydrogen is also a pain - the density is crap even as a liquid and very technically challenging, and the density is mind-bogglingly crap as a gas - you'd want to find some vast geological underground reservoir in which to store it economically. None of these are insurmountable, it's just not an especially attractive option as things stand.
        adrianN 2y ago
        Total system cost is what matters, efficiency is only a small part of the equation. As far as I know a mixture of batteries and hydrogen in a renewable grid looks like the cheapest solution. Storing hydrogen is trivially done in salt caverns. We already do it that way today.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      I've heard that argument a lot but .. that's not how the electricity market is actually structured, at least in the UK. Both wind farms and nuclear power plants end up with a "strike price", which is effectively a collar option around the spot price so that revenue is guaranteed. It can in some cases result in wind farms having to pay money back if the spot price goes up too much. Separately there is the capacity auction https://www.emrsettlement.co.uk/schemes/capacity-market/ https://www.emrsettlement.co.uk/schemes/capacity-market/ and a fast frequency response market (which batteries are starting to appear in). > Had we built more and smaller nuclear power plants decades ago The "learning rate" for reactors appears to be negative: over time, they get harder to build. Possibly as people discover more ways in which things could go wrong. Hinckley Point C is over time and budget.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      We build bigger nuclear reactors because they are cheaper than small ones. Similar to big wind turbines, there's fundamental physical properties of scale that make the electricity from big nuclear plants cheaper. Small nuclear plants are (maybe) cheaper per "plant" but not cheaper per watt and likely never will be.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  We're not going to be reducing our use if we are also replacing fossil fuels with electricity, short of rationing.
- diggan 2y ago
  > anti-solar people Anti-nuclear folks I've heard about (and argued myself against) in both Spain and Sweden, but anti-solar people? Never heard anyone being against solar, what are the arguments for not having solar granted you have enough sun and besides any temporary economic arguments?
  - Timon3 2y ago
    The arguments I've heard (even though most are wrong, they are still brought up): - the energy they produce is too unreliable - their production creates more pollution than they save - the lifespan is too short to be worth it - they require too much land that should be used differently
  - grues-dinner 2y ago
    This kind of thing: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010106/EN010106-003769-Tim%20French%20-%20Written%20Representations%20(WRs).pdf https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-conten... On the face of it it sounds somewhat sensible point by point, but the more you did in, the more it just boils down to finding excuses, any excuse at all, for NIMBYism, often from rich urbanites who moved to the country and want it to be an episode of Downton Abbey, and fret about their house price more then anything else in the world. This one tries a particularly hamfisted and tendentious "but Ukraine", neglecting that the fucked domestic energy situation is heavily impacted by Ukraine right now.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
adrianN 2y ago
Nuclear is not financially viable in a market dominated by renewables.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Which is why government will need to foot the bill as a strategic priority. No one is saying that it is something that should interest private sector investors. Obviously on a spreadsheet it has no chance of comparing favorably against slapping up windmills. It needs to be looked at in terms of national security.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    In terms of national security you want hydrogen turbines, electrolysis, and batteries.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      There is some research on repurposing existing methane pipeline infra for transporting chemical energy produced from low carbon energy. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fe016_kass_2023_p-pdf.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibrarie...
  - T-A 2y ago
    The Swedish approach: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-state-loans-new-nuclear-reactors-2025-03-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-stat...
    - queuep 2y ago
      You mean giving favorable loans to companies that can then run it for profit?
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Solar and wind and batteries and EVs and heat pumps are probably the better options for quickly making a difference. There's a culture war about each item on that list, oddly enough.
- sshine 2y ago
  There’s a culture war about heat pumps? I know that the taxation on renewables is always touchy because the technology and how electricity gets routed and used changed faster than tax law.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Yes, especially AfD in Germany but in other countries too: https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-lambrou-alternative-for-germany-heat-pump-election-climate-change/ https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-lambrou-alternative-f...
    - roenxi 2y ago
      That seems like a bit of a misinterpretation of what is being described in the article - there isn't any controversy about heatpumps. According to the article the controversy is a law making it mandatory to buy something that costs €17,000 which is close enough to double the price of a reasonable alternative. The thing being heat pumps doesn't really an issue. It is the same as the "anti-solar" push back in the day. It was pointed out at the time that Germany's initial Energiewende push was going to be a disaster and they ended up with some of the most expensive electricity in Europe for a while there. Again, that isn't an anti-solar or anti-wind observation. That is an observation that the people running the electricity grid are incompetent and verging on enemies to German prosperity. It makes a lot of sense that people like the AfD if they can consistently pitch "we're not going to just slug you for thousands of euros" but that isn't an anti-heat-pump stance. There isn't resistance to any particular technology, if it made sense to use I'd expect general support for the idea. The controversy is the people who are insisting on driving the costs up for no reason are quite controversial, because they are morons and shouldn't be in charge of anything. My theory is post-WWII the British did something to permanently screw up the ability of the German elite circles to function, it is quite stunning to watch them struggle to understand why people might not like expensive, scarce energy and ongoing visible money wasting projects.
amai 2y ago
Nowadays nuclear power plants only make sense in case you want to build nuclear weapons. Just for power production they are just too expensive.

11235813213455 2y ago

It's crazy to hear the anti-nuclear, or anti-solar people, we obviosuly need a mix of everything, but above all we need to reduce our use

pjc50 2y ago
The weird thing is the extent to which pro-nuclear people are against other, cheaper, renewables.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  I think the argument is that cheaper renewables are only cheaper because they externalize the cost of storage to either expensive batteries or tech that doesn't exist yet. Nuclear, otoh, provides constant output (barring maintenance windows) and has the full cost of the plant, from construction to decommissioning, built into it. We've got nuclear submarines that run just fine- the prototypal tiny reactor. Had we built more and smaller nuclear power plants decades ago, we could have averted a lot of emissions and so on and so forth.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Which part of gas turbines and electrolysis doesn’t exist yet?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Don't worry, the NIMBYs will come for that just as well as nuclear. https://news.stv.tv/north/plan-for-uks-biggest-hydrogen-plant-rejected https://news.stv.tv/north/plan-for-uks-biggest-hydrogen-plan...
    - ballooney 2y ago
      The electrical efficiency of breaking water to hydrogen, then combusting hydrogen through a turbine to generate electricity, compares extremely disfavourably to most other forms of storage - it takes about 50kWh of electricity to produce 1kg of Hydrogen, and if you propagate that back through a turbine and make some conservative assumptions about electrolyser costs and so on and so on, you're sort of approaching 5x the cost of others forms of renewable electricity to make electricity from stored hydrogen. Of course, if we're building enough renewable capacity that electricity is basically free when it's sunny or windy, that changes the eceonomics and maybe we should all be making hydrogen in that sort of [bumpily]-abundant future. However, storing hydrogen is also a pain - the density is crap even as a liquid and very technically challenging, and the density is mind-bogglingly crap as a gas - you'd want to find some vast geological underground reservoir in which to store it economically. None of these are insurmountable, it's just not an especially attractive option as things stand.
      - adrianN 2y ago
        Total system cost is what matters, efficiency is only a small part of the equation. As far as I know a mixture of batteries and hydrogen in a renewable grid looks like the cheapest solution. Storing hydrogen is trivially done in salt caverns. We already do it that way today.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    I've heard that argument a lot but .. that's not how the electricity market is actually structured, at least in the UK. Both wind farms and nuclear power plants end up with a "strike price", which is effectively a collar option around the spot price so that revenue is guaranteed. It can in some cases result in wind farms having to pay money back if the spot price goes up too much. Separately there is the capacity auction https://www.emrsettlement.co.uk/schemes/capacity-market/ https://www.emrsettlement.co.uk/schemes/capacity-market/ and a fast frequency response market (which batteries are starting to appear in). > Had we built more and smaller nuclear power plants decades ago The "learning rate" for reactors appears to be negative: over time, they get harder to build. Possibly as people discover more ways in which things could go wrong. Hinckley Point C is over time and budget.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    We build bigger nuclear reactors because they are cheaper than small ones. Similar to big wind turbines, there's fundamental physical properties of scale that make the electricity from big nuclear plants cheaper. Small nuclear plants are (maybe) cheaper per "plant" but not cheaper per watt and likely never will be.
zdragnar 2y ago
We're not going to be reducing our use if we are also replacing fossil fuels with electricity, short of rationing.
diggan 2y ago
> anti-solar people Anti-nuclear folks I've heard about (and argued myself against) in both Spain and Sweden, but anti-solar people? Never heard anyone being against solar, what are the arguments for not having solar granted you have enough sun and besides any temporary economic arguments?
- Timon3 2y ago
  The arguments I've heard (even though most are wrong, they are still brought up): - the energy they produce is too unreliable - their production creates more pollution than they save - the lifespan is too short to be worth it - they require too much land that should be used differently
- grues-dinner 2y ago
  This kind of thing: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010106/EN010106-003769-Tim%20French%20-%20Written%20Representations%20(WRs).pdf https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-conten... On the face of it it sounds somewhat sensible point by point, but the more you did in, the more it just boils down to finding excuses, any excuse at all, for NIMBYism, often from rich urbanites who moved to the country and want it to be an episode of Downton Abbey, and fret about their house price more then anything else in the world. This one tries a particularly hamfisted and tendentious "but Ukraine", neglecting that the fucked domestic energy situation is heavily impacted by Ukraine right now.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

adrianN 2y ago

Nuclear is not financially viable in a market dominated by renewables.

bilbo0s 2y ago
Which is why government will need to foot the bill as a strategic priority. No one is saying that it is something that should interest private sector investors. Obviously on a spreadsheet it has no chance of comparing favorably against slapping up windmills. It needs to be looked at in terms of national security.
- adrianN 2y ago
  In terms of national security you want hydrogen turbines, electrolysis, and batteries.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    There is some research on repurposing existing methane pipeline infra for transporting chemical energy produced from low carbon energy. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fe016_kass_2023_p-pdf.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibrarie...
- T-A 2y ago
  The Swedish approach: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-state-loans-new-nuclear-reactors-2025-03-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-stat...
  - queuep 2y ago
    You mean giving favorable loans to companies that can then run it for profit?

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Solar and wind and batteries and EVs and heat pumps are probably the better options for quickly making a difference. There's a culture war about each item on that list, oddly enough.

sshine 2y ago
There’s a culture war about heat pumps? I know that the taxation on renewables is always touchy because the technology and how electricity gets routed and used changed faster than tax law.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Yes, especially AfD in Germany but in other countries too: https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-lambrou-alternative-for-germany-heat-pump-election-climate-change/ https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-lambrou-alternative-f...
  - roenxi 2y ago
    That seems like a bit of a misinterpretation of what is being described in the article - there isn't any controversy about heatpumps. According to the article the controversy is a law making it mandatory to buy something that costs €17,000 which is close enough to double the price of a reasonable alternative. The thing being heat pumps doesn't really an issue. It is the same as the "anti-solar" push back in the day. It was pointed out at the time that Germany's initial Energiewende push was going to be a disaster and they ended up with some of the most expensive electricity in Europe for a while there. Again, that isn't an anti-solar or anti-wind observation. That is an observation that the people running the electricity grid are incompetent and verging on enemies to German prosperity. It makes a lot of sense that people like the AfD if they can consistently pitch "we're not going to just slug you for thousands of euros" but that isn't an anti-heat-pump stance. There isn't resistance to any particular technology, if it made sense to use I'd expect general support for the idea. The controversy is the people who are insisting on driving the costs up for no reason are quite controversial, because they are morons and shouldn't be in charge of anything. My theory is post-WWII the British did something to permanently screw up the ability of the German elite circles to function, it is quite stunning to watch them struggle to understand why people might not like expensive, scarce energy and ongoing visible money wasting projects.

amai 2y ago

Nowadays nuclear power plants only make sense in case you want to build nuclear weapons. Just for power production they are just too expensive.