981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest that the costs around children are a marketing scare tactic from people who want to create a fear of having children.
You said, verbatim: > There's no better investment. I then asked how is this an _investment_ for the parents. Can you explain that? I didn't ask about the off-tangent hypothesis, but the investment claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not if you read fraunhofer ise decarbonization pathways report. If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils
I don't know how you read this out of the report When we already talk about Fraunhofer, they with a few other institutes, have been sketching out various pathways over the years for Germany for transitioning to a renewable energy system multiple times, see https://langfristszenarien.de/enertile-explorer-wAssets/docs... While Germany has some hydro, it's just a tiny amount
In pessimistic economy growth scenario about 80GW of gas are needed or more otherwise. The hope is to sometime replace it with hydrogen which looks like a gamble https://ieefa.org/resources/germanys-gas-and-hydrogen-gamble
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They specific example GP gave was locals being opposed to something. That is textbook nimbyism. Happy for other examples that would demonstrate nuance, but that isn't it.
That would be part of it for sure. Locally there is opposition to gold mining. People in the region oppose it and with a broad definition of ‘NIMBY’ you’d be right. But neighbouring valley, town, region etc is a broad definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just batteries? Throw on a gas turbine emergency reserve running your favorite fossil or green fuel for well, the emergencies. We’re talking irrelevant emissions. I truly can’t comprehend where this massive boner for new built nuclear power comes from. Sci-fi?
ah yes, green fuel like dirt cheap H2 and irrelevant emissions from multi GW of gas/coal firming... I'm not sure what you mean by a boner for nuclear, but we see France has one of the lowest emissions in EU, did teh job in under 20y, is largest net exporter in EU, and spent on this half of what DE spent on EEG alone. Germany is still one of the worst emitters in EU after 25y of ewende. No country managed to match fre…
Waiting until the 2040s for new built nuclear power or you know, just investing in renewables and storage?
You seem stuck in some imaginary perfect world, always looking back rather than daring to look forward.
Even the French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power in 2026 as evidenced by their zero commercial reactors under construction and the state of the EPR2 program. The French fleet will shrink due to all plants hitting EOL without replacements in sight.
Looking at cumulative emissions any investment in renewables, even if they are imperfect, extends our timeline for reaching perfect by decades. Due to their deployment speed and how effective they are at decarbonization per dollar spent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah yes, green fuel like dirt cheap H2 and irrelevant emissions from multi GW of gas/coal firming... I'm not sure what you mean by a boner for nuclear, but we see France has one of the lowest emissions in EU, did teh job in under 20y, is largest net exporter in EU, and spent on this half of what DE spent on EEG alone. Germany is still one of the worst emitters in EU after 25y of ewende. No country managed to match fre…
And what is the method for say Poland to bring down their 589 gCO2 per kWh emission intensity with the lowest cumulative emissions? Waiting until the 2040s for new built nuclear power or you know, just investing in renewables and storage? You seem stuck in some imaginary perfect world, always looking back rather than daring to look forward. Even the French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power in 2026 as evide…
Epr2 is advancing, framatome is already manufacturing it's components. EDF will extend own units just like it was done in US so the fleet will either remain stable or grow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what is the method for say Poland to bring down their 589 gCO2 per kWh emission intensity with the lowest cumulative emissions? Waiting until the 2040s for new built nuclear power or you know, just investing in renewables and storage? You seem stuck in some imaginary perfect world, always looking back rather than daring to look forward. Even the French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power in 2026 as evide…
Do both. I didn't advocate to stop renewables. I advocate to do both unlike some that have a boner for renewables and gas firming. Yes if you don't build ren now. You'll have higher emissions till nuclear is ready. If you don't build nuclear now, you'll have higher emissions when you use gas firming. The solution is expanding both, like it's done in France, Sweden, Romania and bunch of other countries Epr2 is advanci…
> If you don't build nuclear now, you'll have higher emissions when you use gas firming.
This means neither technology nor markets will ever change. I think here you have your issue. You assume everything is static.
> The solution is expanding both, like it's done in France, Sweden, Romania and bunch of other countries
You mean the zero commercial nuclear powerplants under construction in those countries?
Talk is easy. Running bidding processes are easy. Selling the public on tens of billions in handouts per large scale reactor and having to own the results for decades is hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with Danish insolation and weather and tilting the study heavily towards nuclear power by assuming that the nuclear costs are 40% lower than Flamanville 3 and 70% lower than Hinkley Point C while modeling solar as 20% more expensive renewables come out to vastly cheaper when doing system analyses. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
This paper is very heavily biased against nuclear power and is only valid for Denmark It uses 8% discount rate for nuclear vs 5% for VRE It uses the most expensive nuclear reactor costs instead of Korean and Chinese reactors delivered at 3,500–5,000 USD/kW 80% capacity factor for nuclear is very low and should be over 90% for new reactors. It's least cost mix intentionally excludes nuclear power which is absurd. Stan…
The French nuclear plants have an average capacity factor of ~70%, the Swedish plants around 80%. It seems most prudent to assume a nuclear plant in Denmark would be at a similar level.
And if you want to use the plant in a dispatchable pattern, you'll be turning it off a lot when the sun is out and the wind is blowing, further decreasing capacity factor and increasing the LCOE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure how pointing out that a year's worth of global battery production amounts to just 3 days of one US state's electricity demand is supposed to demonstrate that battery storage is feasible. It was pointing out that the comment making off-the-wall requirements of battery storage was already not aware of the order of magnitude of existing batteries. You don't know the exact > To put this in perspective, glo…
> The implication seems to be that batteries will get more expensive at some point. Perhaps. Or more chemistries will be discovered or used. Lithium got very expensive for a short while, then cheap. The cure for high prices is high prices, because unlike oil there are tons of substitutions available for all aspects of batteries. Such as? Is your proposal that we use lead acid batteries instead of lithium based batter…
https://electrek.co/2026/04/27/catl-sodium-ion-battery-60gwh...
Looking at 9GWh in 2025 and thinking that's representative of the future is just bonkers, and not based in reality. Much less calling the continual growth "handwaving".
It is beyond foolish to think that there's some limitation - a never specified limitation - that would stop this massive scaling, just like we've scaled every other industry of importance in human history. It's just wishful thinking to say that batteries will not be an absolutely massive part of the grid in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This paper is very heavily biased against nuclear power and is only valid for Denmark It uses 8% discount rate for nuclear vs 5% for VRE It uses the most expensive nuclear reactor costs instead of Korean and Chinese reactors delivered at 3,500–5,000 USD/kW 80% capacity factor for nuclear is very low and should be over 90% for new reactors. It's least cost mix intentionally excludes nuclear power which is absurd. Stan…
Grandparent's report uses a nuclear LCOE of 110 USD/MWh which is pretty close to the Korean nuclear plant in Abu Dhabi. The (AFAIK) only plant they've built outside Korea. The French nuclear plants have an average capacity factor of ~70%, the Swedish plants around 80%. It seems most prudent to assume a nuclear plant in Denmark would be at a similar level. And if you want to use the plant in a dispatchable pattern, yo…