Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

Post by chess_buster » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

cbmuser wrote: post #19

542458 wrote: post #11

One thing that feels a bit strange to me is that he uses timelines of 1000 years when calculating nuclear reserves. I don’t believe we need a plan for the next 1000 years - think of what our understanding of power generation and transmission was a millennium ago. Assuming that we will still be using the same technologies in 1000 years seems a bit pessimistic to me.

Physics won’t change in a thousand years and it’s very unlikely we’ll find anything more powerful and energy-dense beyond nuclear fission and fusion.

Post by vkou » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #69

korantu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuel is very small part in cost of nuclear generation; As fuel price start increasing, more sources become viable, including sea water. There is practically unlimited supply once it happens, and this is before accounting for reprocessing. (and reprocessing happens in France, for example)

Right, but the fuel cost goes up over time as extraction gets harder (eventually requiring entire new types of facilities, which themselves take a decade to build), even as wind and solar continue their exponentially decreasing LCOE cost curve. The exponentially decreasing cost curve is the part that I think people haven't actually internalized. The arguments on the pro-nuclear side are pretty much the same as they w…

Post by m4rtink » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #20

ycomb-uit-co-uk wrote: post #6

Have a look at http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ (I was David's Editor for "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air". There's been quite a bit of interest in updating the book, but there are obvious difficulties. If have suggestions, let me know. Niall Mansfield sewtha-2.0@uit.co.uk )

I wonder if this is correct. Setting the nuclear slider to max single-handedly reduces emissions by 30%, decreases energy costs rather than increases, does not require land use change, improves air quality, and also reduces electricity demand by using the waste heat for district heating. Now add: (1.) electrification of freight transport, (2.) tackling the (relatively) quick wins in industry electrification, and (3.)…

Post by lucb1e » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #61

lucb1e wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turbines have gone from 1-2MW to 10-16MW Okay, but GP's point was that these bigger turbines need to be spaced further apart instead, so we can place fewer of them. That we could build bigger turbines was not in question I think. Do you happen to know whether the MW per km² increased more than the 30% expected amount that GP cited? And regarding doing things between the turbines, I wasn't "awake" yet in 2006 so I d…

But why is it important to optimise MW per km2? Seems like premature optimization of something that is not the bottleneck.

Post by bbojan » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #55

lucb1e wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is correct. Setting the nuclear slider to max single-handedly reduces emissions by 30%, decreases energy costs rather than increases, does not require land use change, improves air quality, and also reduces electricity demand by using the waste heat for district heating. Now add: (1.) electrification of freight transport, (2.) tackling the (relatively) quick wins in industry electrification, and (3.)…

See also, peak uranium : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium 2017 known supply is enough for 130 years at current usage (supplying about 10% of global energy). Each doubling of production halves the peak timeline. Basically no one expects discovery to outpace usage. So, at best, nuclear is a stop gap and part of a different long term solution. Which could be fine! But the extremely low LCOE and fast build ti…