4 ms·

What do you base all these claims on? Plenty of papers show Solar + wind + storage is viable practically everywhere. Also there is a ton of research on plannin

What do you base all these claims on? Plenty of papers show Solar + wind + storage is viable practically everywhere. Also there is a ton of research on planning energy systems and what technology mixes make sense. This stuff has to be economical. Energy costs are measured in percentage of GDP. Simply liking nuclear doesn't make it viable. Especially in a world with PV meaning you can't sell energy during the day. There really is only one macro fact that will shape the energy system of the future: The price of PV modules is now effectively zero in rich countries. Everything else has to be judged by how well it complements/makes use of free energy during daylight hours. The geopolitical implications of this haven't even begun to be explored.

mike_hearn 2y ago
The (subsidized, market dumped) price of cells may be low at the moment, but the price of storage, land and artificial inertia isn't. You can absolutely sell non-PV power during the day. Big power consumers sign contracts for predictable and reliable supply.
- Certhas 2y ago
  PV is not heavily subsidized compared to other energy carriers, and the learning rate has been extremely consistent for a long time. LCOE takes some of the system costs into account, but it's of course true. And your second sentence is not how energy markets actually work. Of course I make a contract for reliable supply, but I don't contract with an individual power plant. I contract with an energy company and that buys from the cheapest supplier mix (aka merit order). The long term contracts for base load run for years, but those, too will eventually have to adpat to the reality of abundant cheap daylight energy. My main point with PV isn't about the system we have right now. It's that we are in the first days of a new system structured around the new technological reality that only recently emerged. Until very recently nobody, even the optimists, expected PV to get that cheap that fast. It will take decades for the repercussions of this phase transition to shake out. The issue is, due to climate change we don't have decades.
SecretDreams 2y ago
Energy independence and a mix of technologies isn't just about cost. It's about redundancy and how you're positioning yourself to handle various unexpected events. You don't want a state primarily on solar if you get a super cell darkening the sky for a week. You want a mix of renewables, but you don't strictly want to rely on the food graces of mother nature at all times. Boiling things down to just price is a very simplistic view.
- Certhas 2y ago
  You seem to think this contradicts my statement somehow? Obviously you want a tech mix, and obviously anyone working in the field is taking the dunkelflaute or other extreme events very seriously. That's where storage comes in, and that's where the biggest unknowns and needs for future development are (e.g. is seasonal H2 storage really feasible). But to pretend like nuclear can magically become cheaper through technical breakthroughs, while storage is an unsolvable problem is disingenuous. It's also disingenuous to suggest that random fluctuations in weather are somehow a unique problem. Sudden unscheduled maintenance can take down nuclear plants as well. As can the weather: Nuclear power plants require cooling and can be shut down due to weather and climatic conditions, too [1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00849-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00849-y > I analyse climate-linked outages in nuclear power plants over the past three decades. My assessment shows that the average frequency of climate-induced disruptions has dramatically increased from 0.2 outage per reactor-year in the 1990s to 1.5 in the past decade. Based on the projections for adopted climate scenarios, the average annual energy loss of the global nuclear fleet is estimated to range between 0.8% and 1.4% in the mid-term (2046–2065) and 1.4% and 2.4% in the long term (2081–2100).
  - SecretDreams 2y ago
    > But to pretend like nuclear can magically become cheaper through technical breakthroughs, while storage is an unsolvable problem is disingenuous. I didn't say storage was not solvable and I even gave a better storage solution than your silly "batteries" example. > Based on the projections for adopted climate scenarios, the average annual energy loss of the global nuclear fleet is estimated to range between 0.8% and 1.4% in the mid-term (2046–2065) and 1.4% and 2.4% in the long term (2081–2100). From your own linked article - do you think this energy loss is even close to comparable to solar for similar conditions? You've linked an article but don't seem to understand the point they're looking to make. Anywho, I don't think you're looking to argue in good faith and seem to have an anti-nuclear agenda, despite talking about an "energy mix". Save your policies for whatever echo chamber they were derived from, thanks.

mike_hearn 2y ago

The (subsidized, market dumped) price of cells may be low at the moment, but the price of storage, land and artificial inertia isn't. You can absolutely sell non-PV power during the day. Big power consumers sign contracts for predictable and reliable supply.

Certhas 2y ago
PV is not heavily subsidized compared to other energy carriers, and the learning rate has been extremely consistent for a long time. LCOE takes some of the system costs into account, but it's of course true. And your second sentence is not how energy markets actually work. Of course I make a contract for reliable supply, but I don't contract with an individual power plant. I contract with an energy company and that buys from the cheapest supplier mix (aka merit order). The long term contracts for base load run for years, but those, too will eventually have to adpat to the reality of abundant cheap daylight energy. My main point with PV isn't about the system we have right now. It's that we are in the first days of a new system structured around the new technological reality that only recently emerged. Until very recently nobody, even the optimists, expected PV to get that cheap that fast. It will take decades for the repercussions of this phase transition to shake out. The issue is, due to climate change we don't have decades.

SecretDreams 2y ago

Energy independence and a mix of technologies isn't just about cost. It's about redundancy and how you're positioning yourself to handle various unexpected events. You don't want a state primarily on solar if you get a super cell darkening the sky for a week. You want a mix of renewables, but you don't strictly want to rely on the food graces of mother nature at all times. Boiling things down to just price is a very simplistic view.

Certhas 2y ago
You seem to think this contradicts my statement somehow? Obviously you want a tech mix, and obviously anyone working in the field is taking the dunkelflaute or other extreme events very seriously. That's where storage comes in, and that's where the biggest unknowns and needs for future development are (e.g. is seasonal H2 storage really feasible). But to pretend like nuclear can magically become cheaper through technical breakthroughs, while storage is an unsolvable problem is disingenuous. It's also disingenuous to suggest that random fluctuations in weather are somehow a unique problem. Sudden unscheduled maintenance can take down nuclear plants as well. As can the weather: Nuclear power plants require cooling and can be shut down due to weather and climatic conditions, too [1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00849-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00849-y > I analyse climate-linked outages in nuclear power plants over the past three decades. My assessment shows that the average frequency of climate-induced disruptions has dramatically increased from 0.2 outage per reactor-year in the 1990s to 1.5 in the past decade. Based on the projections for adopted climate scenarios, the average annual energy loss of the global nuclear fleet is estimated to range between 0.8% and 1.4% in the mid-term (2046–2065) and 1.4% and 2.4% in the long term (2081–2100).
- SecretDreams 2y ago
  > But to pretend like nuclear can magically become cheaper through technical breakthroughs, while storage is an unsolvable problem is disingenuous. I didn't say storage was not solvable and I even gave a better storage solution than your silly "batteries" example. > Based on the projections for adopted climate scenarios, the average annual energy loss of the global nuclear fleet is estimated to range between 0.8% and 1.4% in the mid-term (2046–2065) and 1.4% and 2.4% in the long term (2081–2100). From your own linked article - do you think this energy loss is even close to comparable to solar for similar conditions? You've linked an article but don't seem to understand the point they're looking to make. Anywho, I don't think you're looking to argue in good faith and seem to have an anti-nuclear agenda, despite talking about an "energy mix". Save your policies for whatever echo chamber they were derived from, thanks.