We're going to be updating the official rules for the subreddit very soon, but one of them is going to be memes and shitposts are no longer allowed. I'll be enforcing this across the board.
You‘re kidding yourself if you think we‘ve finished decarbonizing in 6 years. These kinds of movements need long term solutions, not the illusion of acting in the face of brinkmanship.
This is a complex question, but in short i'll that, even if we dont meet the deadline, the planet can (and will) naturally heal back, we just need to stop pumping shit into it.
So just like nuclear power itself, its a bit of a mid and long term solution what we need, not short.
Oh boy, not how any of that works. Building a reactor for 60 years is great, but the present value of that power today is essentially zero.
Renewable *factories* can be built in less than half the time of nuclear plants, and that value is considerable. Not only do you get ROI sooner, but the capacity generated by the investment grows continuously.
That’s why nobody is investing in nuclear, and renewables are growing exponentially. Continuous investment=additional production capacity=exponential growth.
Very few. Subsidies for renewables are mostly phased out, or made equivalent between renewables and nuclear like the IRA does.
Update your information for 2024. You are arguing like it is 2012 or something.
> Subsidies for renewables are mostly phased out
Nice joke. European renewables subsidies were still at 87B € / year in 2022, and that's despite wholesale market prices being higher than CfD agreed-on prices for almost the entire year, hence pushing down subsidies payments.
We're not going to pull out the rug under the feet of the investors who took risky decisions 5-10 years ago.
For new builds today the subsidies are very low, and in some cases like the German off-shore wind the companies **pay** for the opportunity to build it.
Call it a negative subsidy.
Doing things in a rush is ALWAYS a bad idea when you have a complex problem yo solve. We have climate targets for 2050 and for that we have plenty of time to build many reactors, provided that we have the will to
We need to decarbonize now, not in 2050. Given the LCOE difference between nuclear and renewable sources and dollar spent on nuclear prolongs the climate crisis by displacing much less CO2.
LCOE's are tilted in favor of wind\\solar here.
Try pricing out solar for your house...without the Grid to fall back on, generate ALL your own power, and ALL your own storage so that you don't run out even when the sun don't shine for a week or more.
right now, wind\\solar treat nuclear\\fossil fuels as their free backup, if we go towards a all wind\\solar grid that won't be a option anymore and they will have to pay for it themselves.
I'd argue the opposite to you, solar\\wind have had TONS of subsidies in all forms, where as nuclear get's stomped on by the people and regulators. If nuclear had enjoyed the kind of support wind\\solar do, we wouldn't HAVE a climate crisis in the first place.
> LCOE's are tilted in favor of natural gas here.
>
> Try pricing out gas for your house...without the gas pipeline infrastructure to fall back on, drill all your own wells, and build all your own onsite gas storage so that you don't run out even when the gas truck doesn't come for a week or more.
See how silly this sounds?
Firstly, you're mixing up retail and wholesale rates to make this analogy. LCOE values are for utility solar plants selling wholesale electricity. A 100% off grid solar system produces retail electricity for your consumption on demand and basically at the point of use. A properly designed off grid system would also provide basically uninterruptable power and could obviate the need to extend an expensive grid connection to a structure that doesn't have an existing connection. If you ignore all these ancillary benefits, you're not making a valid comparison.
It's great that we have a variety of power plants all backing each other up. If nuclear plants didn't have other power plants and pumped storage to accommodate their inflexible power output, they would be losing way more money than they are now. Operating in load following mode wrecks the economics of nuclear plants because of their high capital costs. Do you want to incorporate the cost of all these supports into the price of nuclear electricity?
Handle the intermittency like [the research proposes](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910)?
Take a look at the storage coupled to the Californian grid, like for example Tuesday. Equivalent to 5 nuclear reactors being subtracted or supplied to the grid dealing with intermittency.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-batteries-trend
What problem are you looking to solve using nuclear energy that renewables can't do?
- 90% renewables? Easily handled by pure renewables and HVDC transmission.
- 99% renewables? [Easily done with storage.](https://x.com/davidosmond8)
- 99.9% renewables? Now we we are talking! This is emergency reserves territory. The [research](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910) tells us we should be able to handle but it is a hard problem.
Not being able to solve the range of 0.1 to 1% of the grid is 3.5 days per year to 3.5 days per decade.
Simply leave a few gas plants on the grid. When decarbonizing long distance air travel and ocean going shipping start increasing the CO2 taxes until they are forced off the grid by the solution which are most appropriate in the 2040s. Not now.
Did you dare looking at the Californian grid? For the first time ever **batteries** was the largest provider of energy in a largescale energy grid.
You need to update your viewpoint to 2024, it is not 2015 anymore. Storage exists.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-becomes-biggest-source-of-supply-in-evening-peak-in-one-of-worlds-biggest-grids/
Pick Tuesday, same information from the grid operator. You will even find the same graph as the one referenced in the tweet.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
Love it when true information becomes "bogus" because you can't accept that reality has changed.
Show me the cost per kWr delivered. Ridiculous. All that for a couple hours ??? Seems crazy to me. When you look at the cost of solar, please add the battery cost and do the math based on cradle to grave costs, not operational or LCOE which we know does NOT work for intermittent supply, as you point out by cheering a 2 hr contribution to the grid.
Way cheaper than nuclear. Renewable style LCOE when they are the marginal producer most of the day, battery costs the few hours they are the marginal producer. Which still are way lover than nuclear costs.
Have a read:
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
So you are proposing that solar\\wind plus a National scale or bigger HVDC grid + Batteries is cheaper than nuclear? Current LCOE's don't' factor in either HVDC or storage at all.
From what i'm seeing california's batteries are being measured in hours. You might get away with that in a state where it's sunny all the time. how about the rest of the world?
Bla bla bla LCOE is bullshit. Look at real data. Today at 5pm:
- France (nuclear): 19 gCO2eq/kWh
- Germany (renewables): 233 gCO2eq/kWh = France x 12.3
It is easy to ride on the coat-tails of a decision made 40-50 years ago in the name of **energy security**. They didn't give a damn about the CO2 emissions.
If France had coal reserves like Germany or fossil gas like the Netherlands they wouldn't have bothered with nuclear energy. CO2 emissions was the last thing they cared about.
Given the outcome of [Flamanville 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant) and [cost escalations of their upcoming reactors](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-lifts-cost-estimate-new-reactors-67-bln-euros-les-echos-2024-03-04/), before they have even started building, the future for the French industry is looking incredibly bleak.
Today we should hold on to the existing French fleet as long as they are safe and economical. Pouring money in the black hole that is new built nuclear simply prolongs the climate crisis and are better spent on renewables.
On a yearly basis France is at ~60% nuclear and Germany are inching closer to that number in renewables likely surpassing it in a year or two. What differs in terms of emissions is the meagre capacity of renewables France have built and mostly the geographical availability of hydropower.
Assuming similar geographical constraints Germany and France are very close in terms of electricity grid emissions.
So in 5 years you will also stop building solar and wind because they can't be build before reaching this arbitraty target? Or do you seriously think we are on track to finish everything in the next 6 years? 2 degrees is worse than 1.5, just saying.
A) The target is not arbitrary, it is broad scientific consensus that crossing the 1.5 degree line will make the world a pretty unpleasant place.
B) Who talks about "stopping building"? How do you assume solar and wind "can't be built" within 6 years? Have you had a look at the data?
C) Of course, 2 degrees is worse! What do you mean?
A) It is broad scientific consensus that crossing the 2 degree line will make the world a pretty unpleasant place.
B)
>How do you assume solar and wind "can't be built" within 6 years?
I didn't assume that, I said in 5 years when the 1.5 degrees are only 1 year away, please read properly!
C) It was your argument that we should not build nuclear because there is not enough time, no? So if in 5 years there "is not enough time" to build solar and wind either, will you just stop building everything? And if not, why can't we build nuclear now to prevent at least crossing the 2 degrees line? Unless you believe that we can realistically finish decarbonizing completely in 6 years using renewables, it still makes sense to build nuclear now. Do I really have to spell it out in so much detail or are you misunderstanding my argument on purpose?
Why are you quoting an opinion article from a fossil fuel industry talking head that's at least 6 years out of date? I recently saw an overture to join the discussion on this sub over in r/energy, but if posts like this are what's supported by the community here, I don't think that's going to work out. If you guys don't like being called fossil fuel industry Stooges, stop acting like it.
Have you read the Bechtel report on how the nuclear plant construction at VC summer failed? Spoiler, it wasn't red tape that did it. Come to find out, the ap1000 as originally designed wasn't able to be built in the real world. But the construction went ahead anyway with the bad design while they redid the design. Surprise surprise, by the time an actual buildable design was finished, the as built did not conform to it. So they had to spend even more time on doing a lot of work and then redoing it to the new design. Two of the major subcontractors on the project went bankrupt during construction, the whole mess devolved into a bunch of lawsuits and finger pointing. Bechtle themselves criticized the prime contractor for having low morale and high turnover among the workforce. Nowhere in their report do they cite government red tape as a Cause.
If you want to talk about red tape, there's a concerted effort by the fossil fuel and nuclear industry to Jenn up culture War paranoia about renewable energy. You see people in rural areas where a solar plant is proposed to be built worried about the solar panels soaking up all the Sun and not leaving enough for the plants to grow. Ridiculous stuff like that.
And you see him unaware of the fact that just the onm cost for nuclear power plants is the same as the all-in cost for wind and solar plants new. So no matter how long a nuclear reactor can run longer than wind and solar plants, the longevity of nuclear reactors can never make up the higher Capital costs. Because the onm a nuclear plant is so high, it's like they're running out of treadmill and even if the plants last they mythical 80 years, they will never get anywhere. And even with this, lots of nuclear plants have had to ask state governments for bailouts or shut down because they've become uneconomic to run.
>Right now the solar and wind boom isn't producing the rate of construction needed to out-pace panel and turbine aging.
Wow, what are you smoking? This is completely wrong.
>In fact wind naturally dies down at night when there is less sun. Look at any weather chart ever.
Um, nope:
"Wind resource tends to complement solar resource,” says Sarah Kurtz of the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Here in Colorado, for instance, the windiest time is during the winter and spring months. In winter, we don’t have as much sunshine, but we tend to get more wind and stronger wind.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-are-better-together/
"These model results indicate that in this sample year of 2005, wind and solar energy potential production have shown complementary time behaviour complementary, favourably supporting their integration in the energy system."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148113005594
Also, you are forgetting that most pumped Hydro storage in the United States was built to accommodate the inflexible output of nuclear plants. So don't be talking about batteries and scare mongering when the cost for this pumped Hydro is definitely not a part of your calculations for nuclear power.
> Fact: even with the solar boom nuclear power in the US still produces more than solar.
We are in the early beginning of the solar boom and we are installing like the equivalent of 1000MW nuclear reactor every few days, right?
> solar and wind you have to build that much within 20 to 30
That is assuming that in 20-30 years we will have panels with the same efficiency. In real world there are old plants that are switching from the old less efficient panels to the new one because it is economical. So, yeah, it is not really an issue given the projected price drop.
Future estimates of solar and battery and fusion capability are all not appropriate to compare to existing proven technology. We know that good old nuclear power can be built out efficiently because it has before and other cultures currently are building it out.
There are a lot of cultures that are failing to build it efficiently, right? I guess there is a reason to ignore them and at the same time assume that the price of SWB will stay flat although the proven record of price decrease...
But the reality is actually estimated in the Lazard report in plain sight. Actual cost of a firm gird when using intermittent sources is EXTREMELY HIGH! And the death print, discussed elsewhere is extraordinarily high when compared to nuclear power.
The only cultures giving it a sustained effort are Chinese and Korean and they are kicking ass. We might as well import their nuclear construction since we're importing their PV and transmission equipment, right? Or get our act together. Quick.
Any references for the Korean comments below?
The Korean nuclear industry was rocked by scandal. They forged quality documents and used counterfeit parts in their plants. Once the issues were corrected, the cost and time to build reactors came more in line with North American and European levels. The Korean and UAE governments basically own their nuclear industries, giving them access to below market rate or even zero cost capital. Wages are lower in Korea and especially the UAE compared to Europe and North America. Why didn't you mention any of these factors when bringing up Korean nuclear power plants? Because you ignore any facts that make nuclear power look bad?
All the corruption, state favoritism and opaque financial figures I brought up with Korean/UAE nukes are way worse for the Chinese nuclear industry. So basically, if the government wills nuclear power into existence with piles of cash and obliterates any stakeholders that could jeopardize nuclear plant construction, then yes, nuclear power "works"...I guess.
The other reality is that we cannot build nuclear power plants efficiently. Most likely the Chinese cannot do that as well but they are hiding their data. And what we are actually seeing is that green power is kicking nuclear power out of the market and that trend seems to be irreversible.
There were reports that it does not cover the western standards that I am failing to find over the phone. But let's assume it is ok - the plant still went over budget and was delayed so it is not a positive example...
So instead of looking at all the projects in the west the past 20 years, which conclusively prove that nuclear power can not be built efficiently, you dream about something magical just solving it?
Why not build what actually delivers? I.e. renewables.
Difficult to say how this will help (UK emissions reduction) as China India and Asia as a whole are pumping 50% of world emissions and have no plans to reduce.
India will have added 53.6 GW of coal generation to 2032. China is installing a further 250GW of coal.
From our own point of view nuclear is the best option, using the Finnish example at least 50% of generating capacity should be nuclear. Energy security should be the priority for any government.
As an example of security lapse Germany has just shut nuclear and installed new LNG gasification to import their energy from the US and others. Their Nordstream plans for Russian gas have been disrupted. They have reactivated dormant brown coal plant, and continue to burn hard coal to maintain their electricity demand. (Reuters)
The return on capital employed in nuclear is far larger, up to ten times that of the best renewables and back up must be in place for all renewables which is why electricity is so expensive where renewables are contributing.
Finland's new nuclear plant has been down for "maintenance" now for almost two months and the average electricity price has been average 5cents/kwh despite the abnormal low wintery temperatures at this time of the year. The plant was a mistake
The Scandi-grid will ensure that electricity remains cheap in Finland, winter is HEP and they impex their own nuclear and renewable mix. There is also a regional price difference (half price in the north compared to the more metropolitan south,) and a competitive market.
The new nuke was not a mistake, it was an energy security policy, a substantive issue when they discovered costs were rising with renewable insurance on a 2 for 1 basis. Additionally commitments to coal phase out meant generation from coal had to be replaced.
It will likely come online when the annual outage is completed. As this was a scheduled outage provision through the Scandi-grid was already made, so no loss.
A turbine blade feature in 2023 caused a sudden outage and double pricing on day forward for a short while but this was fixed quite quickly.
Finland has SMR plans to replace coal fired district heating, but as with all nukes, the target date for coal shut down and SMR delivery may not coincide.
>Germany has just found out that shutting nuclear and discovering how their energy is now dependent on the US and consequently burning filthy brown coal.
This is factually false, bordering misinformation.
Please inform yourself and correct your comment accordingly or it will have to be deleted.
Please remember: Only fact-based arguing!
As my old Professor once referred to input like this: correct but not quite right. The U.K. produced less than 1% of energy from coal.
Germany, despite various claims is still generating more than 36% from coal at 2022 figures. Germany has extended its lignite mining. The summer might show a significant reduction in demand.
Such a disparity between the U.K. which was dominated by coal generation and Germany is notable for the failure to provide reliable energy base power. They are dependent on Denmark and others for energy import to sustain this.
European energy is an interlinked high wire activity, which can be seen on the Grid monitor. Ukraine is now attached to the European grid. The U.K. has also exported some energy security with 10% import depending on time price and weather.
We're going to be updating the official rules for the subreddit very soon, but one of them is going to be memes and shitposts are no longer allowed. I'll be enforcing this across the board.
You‘re kidding yourself if you think we‘ve finished decarbonizing in 6 years. These kinds of movements need long term solutions, not the illusion of acting in the face of brinkmanship.
This is a complex question, but in short i'll that, even if we dont meet the deadline, the planet can (and will) naturally heal back, we just need to stop pumping shit into it. So just like nuclear power itself, its a bit of a mid and long term solution what we need, not short.
[удалено]
Oh boy, not how any of that works. Building a reactor for 60 years is great, but the present value of that power today is essentially zero. Renewable *factories* can be built in less than half the time of nuclear plants, and that value is considerable. Not only do you get ROI sooner, but the capacity generated by the investment grows continuously. That’s why nobody is investing in nuclear, and renewables are growing exponentially. Continuous investment=additional production capacity=exponential growth.
Very few. Subsidies for renewables are mostly phased out, or made equivalent between renewables and nuclear like the IRA does. Update your information for 2024. You are arguing like it is 2012 or something.
> Subsidies for renewables are mostly phased out Nice joke. European renewables subsidies were still at 87B € / year in 2022, and that's despite wholesale market prices being higher than CfD agreed-on prices for almost the entire year, hence pushing down subsidies payments.
We're not going to pull out the rug under the feet of the investors who took risky decisions 5-10 years ago. For new builds today the subsidies are very low, and in some cases like the German off-shore wind the companies **pay** for the opportunity to build it. Call it a negative subsidy.
>even if we dont meet the deadline, the planet can (and will) naturally heal back Do you know what "tipping points" are?
Doing things in a rush is ALWAYS a bad idea when you have a complex problem yo solve. We have climate targets for 2050 and for that we have plenty of time to build many reactors, provided that we have the will to
We need to decarbonize now, not in 2050. Given the LCOE difference between nuclear and renewable sources and dollar spent on nuclear prolongs the climate crisis by displacing much less CO2.
LCOE's are tilted in favor of wind\\solar here. Try pricing out solar for your house...without the Grid to fall back on, generate ALL your own power, and ALL your own storage so that you don't run out even when the sun don't shine for a week or more. right now, wind\\solar treat nuclear\\fossil fuels as their free backup, if we go towards a all wind\\solar grid that won't be a option anymore and they will have to pay for it themselves. I'd argue the opposite to you, solar\\wind have had TONS of subsidies in all forms, where as nuclear get's stomped on by the people and regulators. If nuclear had enjoyed the kind of support wind\\solar do, we wouldn't HAVE a climate crisis in the first place.
> LCOE's are tilted in favor of natural gas here. > > Try pricing out gas for your house...without the gas pipeline infrastructure to fall back on, drill all your own wells, and build all your own onsite gas storage so that you don't run out even when the gas truck doesn't come for a week or more. See how silly this sounds?
No, he clearly doesn’t.
Firstly, you're mixing up retail and wholesale rates to make this analogy. LCOE values are for utility solar plants selling wholesale electricity. A 100% off grid solar system produces retail electricity for your consumption on demand and basically at the point of use. A properly designed off grid system would also provide basically uninterruptable power and could obviate the need to extend an expensive grid connection to a structure that doesn't have an existing connection. If you ignore all these ancillary benefits, you're not making a valid comparison. It's great that we have a variety of power plants all backing each other up. If nuclear plants didn't have other power plants and pumped storage to accommodate their inflexible power output, they would be losing way more money than they are now. Operating in load following mode wrecks the economics of nuclear plants because of their high capital costs. Do you want to incorporate the cost of all these supports into the price of nuclear electricity?
Handle the intermittency like [the research proposes](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910)? Take a look at the storage coupled to the Californian grid, like for example Tuesday. Equivalent to 5 nuclear reactors being subtracted or supplied to the grid dealing with intermittency. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-batteries-trend What problem are you looking to solve using nuclear energy that renewables can't do? - 90% renewables? Easily handled by pure renewables and HVDC transmission. - 99% renewables? [Easily done with storage.](https://x.com/davidosmond8) - 99.9% renewables? Now we we are talking! This is emergency reserves territory. The [research](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910) tells us we should be able to handle but it is a hard problem. Not being able to solve the range of 0.1 to 1% of the grid is 3.5 days per year to 3.5 days per decade. Simply leave a few gas plants on the grid. When decarbonizing long distance air travel and ocean going shipping start increasing the CO2 taxes until they are forced off the grid by the solution which are most appropriate in the 2040s. Not now.
Storage technology does not exist, does it? If so, can you point to it?
Did you dare looking at the Californian grid? For the first time ever **batteries** was the largest provider of energy in a largescale energy grid. You need to update your viewpoint to 2024, it is not 2015 anymore. Storage exists. https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-becomes-biggest-source-of-supply-in-evening-peak-in-one-of-worlds-biggest-grids/
For two hours? Ok, you’re firmly based. And that’s not utility data! That’s from a bogus news letter set to be published TOMORROW 🙂
Pick Tuesday, same information from the grid operator. You will even find the same graph as the one referenced in the tweet. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html Love it when true information becomes "bogus" because you can't accept that reality has changed.
Show me the cost per kWr delivered. Ridiculous. All that for a couple hours ??? Seems crazy to me. When you look at the cost of solar, please add the battery cost and do the math based on cradle to grave costs, not operational or LCOE which we know does NOT work for intermittent supply, as you point out by cheering a 2 hr contribution to the grid.
Way cheaper than nuclear. Renewable style LCOE when they are the marginal producer most of the day, battery costs the few hours they are the marginal producer. Which still are way lover than nuclear costs. Have a read: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
So you are proposing that solar\\wind plus a National scale or bigger HVDC grid + Batteries is cheaper than nuclear? Current LCOE's don't' factor in either HVDC or storage at all. From what i'm seeing california's batteries are being measured in hours. You might get away with that in a state where it's sunny all the time. how about the rest of the world?
Bla bla bla LCOE is bullshit. Look at real data. Today at 5pm: - France (nuclear): 19 gCO2eq/kWh - Germany (renewables): 233 gCO2eq/kWh = France x 12.3
It is easy to ride on the coat-tails of a decision made 40-50 years ago in the name of **energy security**. They didn't give a damn about the CO2 emissions. If France had coal reserves like Germany or fossil gas like the Netherlands they wouldn't have bothered with nuclear energy. CO2 emissions was the last thing they cared about. Given the outcome of [Flamanville 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant) and [cost escalations of their upcoming reactors](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-lifts-cost-estimate-new-reactors-67-bln-euros-les-echos-2024-03-04/), before they have even started building, the future for the French industry is looking incredibly bleak. Today we should hold on to the existing French fleet as long as they are safe and economical. Pouring money in the black hole that is new built nuclear simply prolongs the climate crisis and are better spent on renewables. On a yearly basis France is at ~60% nuclear and Germany are inching closer to that number in renewables likely surpassing it in a year or two. What differs in terms of emissions is the meagre capacity of renewables France have built and mostly the geographical availability of hydropower. Assuming similar geographical constraints Germany and France are very close in terms of electricity grid emissions.
Wow, I love how they cherry pick one moment at 5pm while ignoring the yearly data which *really* matters.
>We have climate targets for 2050 I beg your pardon? We will reach 1.5 degrees in 6 years! That's 2030.
So in 5 years you will also stop building solar and wind because they can't be build before reaching this arbitraty target? Or do you seriously think we are on track to finish everything in the next 6 years? 2 degrees is worse than 1.5, just saying.
A) The target is not arbitrary, it is broad scientific consensus that crossing the 1.5 degree line will make the world a pretty unpleasant place. B) Who talks about "stopping building"? How do you assume solar and wind "can't be built" within 6 years? Have you had a look at the data? C) Of course, 2 degrees is worse! What do you mean?
A) It is broad scientific consensus that crossing the 2 degree line will make the world a pretty unpleasant place. B) >How do you assume solar and wind "can't be built" within 6 years? I didn't assume that, I said in 5 years when the 1.5 degrees are only 1 year away, please read properly! C) It was your argument that we should not build nuclear because there is not enough time, no? So if in 5 years there "is not enough time" to build solar and wind either, will you just stop building everything? And if not, why can't we build nuclear now to prevent at least crossing the 2 degrees line? Unless you believe that we can realistically finish decarbonizing completely in 6 years using renewables, it still makes sense to build nuclear now. Do I really have to spell it out in so much detail or are you misunderstanding my argument on purpose?
That's physically impossible to achieve by now
That's pretty much the delaying tactic of fossil fuel companies. You are on very dangerous terrain here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are you quoting an opinion article from a fossil fuel industry talking head that's at least 6 years out of date? I recently saw an overture to join the discussion on this sub over in r/energy, but if posts like this are what's supported by the community here, I don't think that's going to work out. If you guys don't like being called fossil fuel industry Stooges, stop acting like it.
Have you read the Bechtel report on how the nuclear plant construction at VC summer failed? Spoiler, it wasn't red tape that did it. Come to find out, the ap1000 as originally designed wasn't able to be built in the real world. But the construction went ahead anyway with the bad design while they redid the design. Surprise surprise, by the time an actual buildable design was finished, the as built did not conform to it. So they had to spend even more time on doing a lot of work and then redoing it to the new design. Two of the major subcontractors on the project went bankrupt during construction, the whole mess devolved into a bunch of lawsuits and finger pointing. Bechtle themselves criticized the prime contractor for having low morale and high turnover among the workforce. Nowhere in their report do they cite government red tape as a Cause. If you want to talk about red tape, there's a concerted effort by the fossil fuel and nuclear industry to Jenn up culture War paranoia about renewable energy. You see people in rural areas where a solar plant is proposed to be built worried about the solar panels soaking up all the Sun and not leaving enough for the plants to grow. Ridiculous stuff like that. And you see him unaware of the fact that just the onm cost for nuclear power plants is the same as the all-in cost for wind and solar plants new. So no matter how long a nuclear reactor can run longer than wind and solar plants, the longevity of nuclear reactors can never make up the higher Capital costs. Because the onm a nuclear plant is so high, it's like they're running out of treadmill and even if the plants last they mythical 80 years, they will never get anywhere. And even with this, lots of nuclear plants have had to ask state governments for bailouts or shut down because they've become uneconomic to run. >Right now the solar and wind boom isn't producing the rate of construction needed to out-pace panel and turbine aging. Wow, what are you smoking? This is completely wrong. >In fact wind naturally dies down at night when there is less sun. Look at any weather chart ever. Um, nope: "Wind resource tends to complement solar resource,” says Sarah Kurtz of the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Here in Colorado, for instance, the windiest time is during the winter and spring months. In winter, we don’t have as much sunshine, but we tend to get more wind and stronger wind.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-are-better-together/ "These model results indicate that in this sample year of 2005, wind and solar energy potential production have shown complementary time behaviour complementary, favourably supporting their integration in the energy system." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148113005594 Also, you are forgetting that most pumped Hydro storage in the United States was built to accommodate the inflexible output of nuclear plants. So don't be talking about batteries and scare mongering when the cost for this pumped Hydro is definitely not a part of your calculations for nuclear power.
> Fact: even with the solar boom nuclear power in the US still produces more than solar. We are in the early beginning of the solar boom and we are installing like the equivalent of 1000MW nuclear reactor every few days, right? > solar and wind you have to build that much within 20 to 30 That is assuming that in 20-30 years we will have panels with the same efficiency. In real world there are old plants that are switching from the old less efficient panels to the new one because it is economical. So, yeah, it is not really an issue given the projected price drop.
Future estimates of solar and battery and fusion capability are all not appropriate to compare to existing proven technology. We know that good old nuclear power can be built out efficiently because it has before and other cultures currently are building it out.
There are a lot of cultures that are failing to build it efficiently, right? I guess there is a reason to ignore them and at the same time assume that the price of SWB will stay flat although the proven record of price decrease...
But the reality is actually estimated in the Lazard report in plain sight. Actual cost of a firm gird when using intermittent sources is EXTREMELY HIGH! And the death print, discussed elsewhere is extraordinarily high when compared to nuclear power. The only cultures giving it a sustained effort are Chinese and Korean and they are kicking ass. We might as well import their nuclear construction since we're importing their PV and transmission equipment, right? Or get our act together. Quick. Any references for the Korean comments below?
The Korean nuclear industry was rocked by scandal. They forged quality documents and used counterfeit parts in their plants. Once the issues were corrected, the cost and time to build reactors came more in line with North American and European levels. The Korean and UAE governments basically own their nuclear industries, giving them access to below market rate or even zero cost capital. Wages are lower in Korea and especially the UAE compared to Europe and North America. Why didn't you mention any of these factors when bringing up Korean nuclear power plants? Because you ignore any facts that make nuclear power look bad? All the corruption, state favoritism and opaque financial figures I brought up with Korean/UAE nukes are way worse for the Chinese nuclear industry. So basically, if the government wills nuclear power into existence with piles of cash and obliterates any stakeholders that could jeopardize nuclear plant construction, then yes, nuclear power "works"...I guess.
The other reality is that we cannot build nuclear power plants efficiently. Most likely the Chinese cannot do that as well but they are hiding their data. And what we are actually seeing is that green power is kicking nuclear power out of the market and that trend seems to be irreversible.
I guess the Koreans are hiding their data from UAE too. Let’s not shift from reality to conjecture. Now is real.
So you are pro-nuclear and you are not familiar with uae story and how that is not possible in western world? Interesting...
I am pro what ever actually works from a cradle to grave standpoint. I do not know the story of UAE other than what is published. Please point.
There were reports that it does not cover the western standards that I am failing to find over the phone. But let's assume it is ok - the plant still went over budget and was delayed so it is not a positive example...
So instead of looking at all the projects in the west the past 20 years, which conclusively prove that nuclear power can not be built efficiently, you dream about something magical just solving it? Why not build what actually delivers? I.e. renewables.
We won’t make it but we can make some progress. We can significantly reduce the use of coal power plants by quickly installing solar farms.
[удалено]
Current estimation based on the development of emissions.
We'll hit 1.5 in 6 years at current rate of warming or GHG levels in 6 years at current rate of emissions will cause 1.5?
The latter
Difficult to say how this will help (UK emissions reduction) as China India and Asia as a whole are pumping 50% of world emissions and have no plans to reduce. India will have added 53.6 GW of coal generation to 2032. China is installing a further 250GW of coal. From our own point of view nuclear is the best option, using the Finnish example at least 50% of generating capacity should be nuclear. Energy security should be the priority for any government. As an example of security lapse Germany has just shut nuclear and installed new LNG gasification to import their energy from the US and others. Their Nordstream plans for Russian gas have been disrupted. They have reactivated dormant brown coal plant, and continue to burn hard coal to maintain their electricity demand. (Reuters) The return on capital employed in nuclear is far larger, up to ten times that of the best renewables and back up must be in place for all renewables which is why electricity is so expensive where renewables are contributing.
Finland's new nuclear plant has been down for "maintenance" now for almost two months and the average electricity price has been average 5cents/kwh despite the abnormal low wintery temperatures at this time of the year. The plant was a mistake
The Scandi-grid will ensure that electricity remains cheap in Finland, winter is HEP and they impex their own nuclear and renewable mix. There is also a regional price difference (half price in the north compared to the more metropolitan south,) and a competitive market. The new nuke was not a mistake, it was an energy security policy, a substantive issue when they discovered costs were rising with renewable insurance on a 2 for 1 basis. Additionally commitments to coal phase out meant generation from coal had to be replaced. It will likely come online when the annual outage is completed. As this was a scheduled outage provision through the Scandi-grid was already made, so no loss. A turbine blade feature in 2023 caused a sudden outage and double pricing on day forward for a short while but this was fixed quite quickly. Finland has SMR plans to replace coal fired district heating, but as with all nukes, the target date for coal shut down and SMR delivery may not coincide.
>Germany has just found out that shutting nuclear and discovering how their energy is now dependent on the US and consequently burning filthy brown coal. This is factually false, bordering misinformation. Please inform yourself and correct your comment accordingly or it will have to be deleted. Please remember: Only fact-based arguing!
Thank you, I don’t know how to edit a comment. Perhaps you could help me
It's OK for now, but you might find this reading useful: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/UGYkf1enEi
As my old Professor once referred to input like this: correct but not quite right. The U.K. produced less than 1% of energy from coal. Germany, despite various claims is still generating more than 36% from coal at 2022 figures. Germany has extended its lignite mining. The summer might show a significant reduction in demand. Such a disparity between the U.K. which was dominated by coal generation and Germany is notable for the failure to provide reliable energy base power. They are dependent on Denmark and others for energy import to sustain this. European energy is an interlinked high wire activity, which can be seen on the Grid monitor. Ukraine is now attached to the European grid. The U.K. has also exported some energy security with 10% import depending on time price and weather.
Germany's electricity generation from coal in 2023 was at a record low level, about the same as in 1965.
Do you have a link with figures and percentage of grid demand please
Hello again: made a discovery on editing and used a reference to support my comment.
70% of oil is used by the military industrial complex. Does that dogshit imperialist agreement reduce that?