Best news for the day, I'm a firm believer that nuclear is the _only_ way for true green energy on earth at scale. it's a manageable risk(checking out what France is doing) and there is simply no other _true_ alternatives.
Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
421–430 of 818 posts
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't dispute the economics of renewable generation on the existing grid. I'm talking about storage as replacement for baseload, which is purely hypothetical at this point. Right now we have very small scale storage as peaker capacity, but not as a baseload replacement.
Storage doesn't replace baseload. Did the pumped hydro dams they built alongside nuclear power plants replace the baseload? No, they took the cheap energy that was produced at times when it wasn't needed and provided it back at peak times. They literally increased the base load by propping it up when it would otherwise droop at night (mostly).
Storage does, in fact, supply base load. That is its purpose.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Top five countries with the highest wind energy capacity in 2020 China – 288.32 GW. ... United States – 122.32 GW. ... Germany – 62.85 GW. ... India – 38.63 GW. ... Spain – 27.24 GW.
This means nothing if you don't factor in storage, or at least measure the CONSISTENT power output. These are just PEAK numbers that are totally useless when planning a grid.
So, factor in storage. And, those are not peak.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
At scale means with mining requirements as well. With current and projected reserves we can manage intra-day requirements for the whole world. This is the we mine it all option. But we need intra-year storage capacity. Nuclear is clearly the easier and only option (and the most environment-friendly to me, considering the mining requirements)
Mining of what? Hydrogen as storage medium for example doesn't require all that much mining. Are you assuming storage will be in the form of Lithium batteries?
Personally, I expect something made with iron or sodium to take over.
For hydrogen, we have to solve the horrible cycle efficiency of its storage. It's not so bad for use as a fuel (e.g. for airplanes), but as static storage hydrogen is currently a very bad choice.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere. The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with econo…
It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power. The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat. Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.
Anytime local storage runs low and transmission line capacity is exceeded, you order a shipment of synthetic ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics. There will be plenty competing for your business.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
'handwave the unsolved-at-scale' ? All you have to do is look at Australia: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/10/worlds-largest-grid-f... > Battery rollout: "AGL Energy has committed to build 850 MW of battery-based assets by 2024. To that end, Torrens Island marks the first project to be constructed at the site of a fossil-fuel power plant. It won’t be the last, however, as big batteries are planned for New South…
French electrical power is 70% nuclear and has an installed capacity of 135 GW of power today. That comes out to 94.5 GW of nuclear power in France alone. Is there any country in the world that can supply hundreds of gigawatts to the grid from batteries today? If not, then the problem of grid power storage is unsolved at scale compared to nuclear.
France installed nuclear capacity is 61370 MWe, I suspect you looked at MWth (thermal output, not electrical output). Source:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fr...
Currently the capacity factor for french nuclear reactors is less than 50% because of various technical issues and maintenance schedule slippage.
It will go further down because of a very hot summer and regulations on maximum released water temperatures.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't answer the question. What exactly is the problem that needs to be solved?
Scaling up capacity of the storage. There aren't that many sites that are geologically feasible for pumped storage (and it destroys a local ecosystem by flooding and draining it repeatedly) and batteries need rare earth metals (not actually that rare but environmentally toxic to produce). We need O(100x) current production to fully switch away from hydrocarbons. That's a lot of reservoirs or a lot of cobalt that have…
> batteries need rare earth metals
"Rare earths" are a column (edit: ha ha see below) in the periodic table, and are not used in batteries.
Some types of electric motors use rare earths, others do not.
Here's a primer: https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-batte...
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#428Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…
> A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, Something I've been thinking about for a while: the best course of action to secure a nation is to build out renewables until the need for external fossil fuels is zero. Even if that means using renewables to make fossil fuels via a process like Fischer–Tropsch as a stop gap. I also think it would be advantageous to start thinking about how to drive t…
It will be cheaper to synthesize and burn ammonia or hydrogen. Which is, therefore, what will happen, anywhere it works at all. Freight shipping, first.
Probably the last big holdout for hydrocarbons will be aviation, but anywhere LH2 airframes start to move in, the old stuff will be wholly unable to compete. Transitioning the whole fleet will take a long time, though.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#429No post body was provided.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany is not building more coal plants it it shutting them down.
Let's not argue semantics. Building new plants, extending existing ones, digging more coal or importing it from abroad. It's all the same. "Green" energy failed, even for one of its biggest proponents. https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec... > In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018.
Your definition of failure is a funny one. So renewables are now consistently supplying 20-30% of Germanys electricity despite decades of efforts by the fossil and nuclear lobby, which essentially destroyed Germanys wind and solar industry (which was world leading).
Nuclear on the other hand which, if you read what proponents said in the 50s, 60s and 70s, was going to give us unlimited free energy, is somehow deemed a success?
Now that renewables are essentially eating fossils and nuclears lunch we are supposed to believe that some sort of nuclear technological revolution is just around the corner and all the high costs are due to the "bad government regulations" anyway?