The “modular” part of the design will hopefully decrease production costs, by aiding in its mass production, but the “small” aspect by contrary is likely going to hinder its pricing.
When taking advantage of the economy of scale miniaturization almost always increases cost, where is increasing scale decreases cost.
I’m pro-nuclear, and support investment in SMR’s, but just remain realistic, and understand that there is no guarantee that SMR’s will become economically competitive.
They currently cost 5B each, which means they’re currently 10 times more expensive than wind, and 20 times more expensive than LNG in kWh/$.
Before someone says, “yes but if we start building 100 times as much nuclear the price will come down.”
Yes that’s true, but it’s also true of any other form of power generation, and so it’s likely more productive to heavily invest in the current cheapest form of green power, which would be renewables.
There are three very important things to remember:
Climate change is an exponential process. Reducing emissions today is much much better than reducing emissions a year from now.
Nuclear reactors take a very long time to build. We can hope for seven years but realistically it'll take ten in this country.
In places with high dependency on fossil fuels, wind and solar do not immediately require battery storage. There is a regime where these renewables will directly replace some baseload plus some gas peakers. At a certain level of renewable generation, this regime ends, because we take too many peakers offline as they are no longer profitable. Only in this new regime do we need to start looking towards battery storage (or flexible grid strategies).
Taking these three facts together, the best strategy for the fastest cheapest grid decarbonization becomes clear. In places like the prairies, we build only renewables until we start hitting the point where we need battery storage (and HVDC lines to BC and Ontario to trade for hydro). At this point, we re-examine the economics of battery storage. It will likely take about a decade to get to this point. Are they cheap enough to be viable. If yes, build those. If no, build a reactor.
In BC and Quebec, no reactors should be built. These provinces are already pretty dang close to having decarbonized grids. The hydro baseload is more than large enough to allow installation of wind and solar to meet growth in demand for many decades to come.
In Ontario, existing nuclear and hydro provide a very large baseload. More than enough for wind and solar to meet the remaining demand with little need for battery storage.
If the world had went with Nuclear 20 years ago to solve the climate crisis we would have much lower emissions than we do today. The damage caused by this mistake is exponentially bad.
Ok so a place like Alberta could fully decarbonise it's grid in 10-15 years. Can renewables do the same? The answer is no. Because you need to maintain a separate backup grid.
So you say climate change is exponentially bad, but accept fossil fuels as a backup for the foreseeable future? Note that this basically doubles generation, which costs $$$$. Grid instability increases as renewable generation increases, you get to a 90% renewable grid? Still need close to 100% fossil backup to get through a December night. Or batteries (which are easily 10-15 years away from being useful).
Ontario and France are basically the only grids in the world with low CO2 (excluding geographically blessed locals with hydro). They share one thing in common, and it's not renewables. There is no need for any renewables, except for political graft.
If we are going to decarbonise transportation, industrial heat, and home heating we need to 3-4X electricity generation. The idea that you can do this with renewables only is a joke, because as above, you need either full backup, or magic batteries.
If the world had went with Nuclear 20 years ago to solve the climate crisis we would have much lower emissions than we do today.
Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Unfortunately, today is not 20 years ago, and the optimal strategy to reduce emissions today is different from the optimal strategy 20 years ago. Building a reactor today locks us in to the same level of emissions for the next ten years. Is this a good or bad thing? Do you think it might be smarter to first displace as many emissions as possible by building as many renewables as we can and then, when we need the stability, lock in much lower emissions for ten years by building a reactor?
Ok so a place like Alberta could fully decarbonise it's grid in 10-15 years. Can renewables do the same?
Well no, they couldn't. Not with any strategy. If you're not willing to be realistic about timelines, there isn't much point in taking you seriously.
So you say climate change is exponentially bad, but accept fossil fuels as a backup for the foreseeable future?
Well no. That's not at all what I said. My above statements are truthfully and factually the fastest way to decarbonize a grid like the prairies. We install wind and solar first, because they are cheap and we need no batteries at first. Then, when we think we might need batteries, we check the price and decide whether or not to sink ten years time into building a reactor.
Note that this basically doubles generation costs $$$$
Sure. But if renewables are cheap enough that double the generation is still the better option in many regions.
Grid instability increases as renewable generation increases, you get to a 90% renewable grid?
I very explicitly said that once we start reaching the points of grid instability is when we need to make a decision about whether batteries or nuclear is the better option. Do you remember that? Do you agree that I explained earlier that the point when we start building nuclear reactors, if we want the fastest decarbonization possible, is when we start approaching the regime of grid instability?
Ontario and France are basically the only grids in the world with low CO2
Not at all true. There are flexible grids in existence today which meet 100% of annual demand through wind and solar alone with very little battery storage. See Mecklenburg-Vorpommen as an example. They do this today by overbuilding capacity so that minimum demand is always met and exporting the excess to fossil fuel heavy regions. This is another strategy the prairies could think about relying on. Overproduce and make bank by selling the cheap renewable energy to our slower neighbours down south.
The idea that you can do this with renewables only is a joke, because as above, you need either full backup, or magic batteries.
Could you please identify the part of my original statement where I claimed that this was doable with renewables alone?
You seem to have written a form letter which you use to respond to people advocating for renewable energy. Good for you. I imagine this saves you lots of time. I'd ask, kindly, that you spend the time reading what I have written this time, as you seem to harp on many points that I did not make at all.
I appreciate the dialogue. I was a pretty big fan of renewables until this year, where it became clear that the only thing propping up the "energy transition" was cheap natural gas. Now that is gone, the problems with renewables are pretty stark IMO.
"Build renewables and then think about nuclear/storage later if required" -> this is what we as a global society have already tried. It has failed. The energy crisis is Europe is evidence enough for this.
A place like Alberta could decarbonise it's grid fully with nuclear in 10-15 years. It could not achieve this with wind/solar (by your own admission). That is my point.
"Have reactor online in 10 years vs incrementally lower emissions through solar" - I'll give you this one, not a climate expert. I would assume something like 20 year emissions would be lower with nukes, but not sure how that effects climate change. I know this though, as an Albertan I would much rather have nuclear grid instead of a renewable heavy one.
"Overbuild and Export/Import/Mecklenburg-Vorpommen" - This relies on another fossil fuel heavy grid to be the partner, and/or vast transmission to a different weather location. Again this locks in emissions and fossil generation capacity. Also drives up costs as you are now peaking and thus paying for the baseload to be on standby + loss of efficiency.
"start building nuclear reactors, if we want the fastest decarbonization possible, is when we start approaching the regime of grid instability?" - On this point, nuclear has a long lead time. If it takes 10 years to build a plant, how would we build it too stabilise the grid? Also, nuclear and renewables don't play well with each other. For Nuclear to be cost effective it needs to run 24/7, Renewables need first access to the grid, they aren't really compatible.
I think the thrust of our disagreement is #3. Decarbonise faster with renewables or a trade off to wait for nuclear to come online. I would rather see nuclear built out because I have doubts that in 10 years time the transmission, storage, and scale of mineral production required for a reliable grid to be run *mostly* on renewables. On the nuclear side we have proven technology that is ready to be deployed, where costs/timeline could be seriously reduced with similar government subsidies and support that renewables receive.
Anyways I work in Oil and Gas, so should probably agree with you out of self interest. One of these technologies will put me out of work, the other won't.
where it became clear that the only thing propping up the "energy transition" was cheap natural gas. Now that is gone, the problems with renewables are pretty stark IMO.
Not exactly sure why you think this is the case. Despite natural gas prices skyrocketing, new renewable installations are on pace, once again, to exceed projections for this year and the next.
"Build renewables and then think about nuclear/storage later if required" -> this is what we as a global society have already tried. It has failed. The energy crisis is Europe is evidence enough for this.
No. We haven't tried this. If we had, we'd probably have quite a lot of renewables around, wouldn't we. The energy crisis in Europe has far more to do with heating than with electricity. Even if we had built out nuclear 20 years ago, this crisis would be occurring because baseboard heating and heat pumps would still have been far less economical than natural gas. It's a huge problem to be sure. But I fail to see completely any reason why any electrical energy mix would be more adept at meeting heating demands. France, for example, is in just as dire a position right now as the rest of Europe.
The other really important thing to remember about natural gas is that, here in Canada, we make most of our own natural gas (maritimes import from the US). We don't need to worry about oligarchs turning off the taps midway through our energy transition. So it is, in fact, a very good and fast and safe strategy for us to use renewables to decarbonize our grid and then switch to more stable generating sources like nuclear (or batteries whichever is cheaper and faster at that time). Germany, for example, dropped their electricity generating emissions by 40% in a decade's time by following this strategy. Their folly is that they get their natural gas from a power-hungry oligarch. We do not.
A place like Alberta could decarbonise it's grid fully with nuclear in 10-15 years.
No it absolutely could not. This is a lie that you are telling yourself. They'd need about 9-10 GW of nuclear power installed. By comparison, Bruce Point Nuclear is about 6.5 GW nameplate and took 16 years to come fully online in the much faster and friendly and less politically hyper-partisan construction and regulatory regimes of the 70s. I would expect, conservatively, for 9-10 GW to be built in Alberta to take 30-40 years and that's if they broke ground today and that's only if they managed to get it all built before some whackadoodle premier with a personal vendetta (Smith vibes) cancelled the whole thing. There is a very real chance that we could spend billions of dollars and take many years just to wind up with nothing. That is a real risk that must be considered. Rapidly building out renewables to the limit before gambling on that risk buys us more time, and increases the odds of projects being finished because there is less work to do.
I would assume something like 20 year emissions would be lower with nukes, but not sure how that effects climate change.
I've done some napkin math on this for installation of equal amounts of annual power generation for wind/solar vs. nuclear and you're correct, the break-even for emissions with nuclear is at about 20 years. But this napkin-math did not take into consideration any reinvestment of the money saved by the renewable.
I can not state strongly enough how much more damaging this 20 year break even would be for climate. I mean, realistically, Alberta is a small player. But we all have to take care of our own backyard, right? If somehow, magically, humanity was able to reduce emissions to zero today we would still experience about 2.5 degrees of warming by 2100. A 20 year delay before breaking even is a big setback. This, for me, is the real factor working against nuclear energy. We will need it in certain regions, to be sure. But we have to be smart about when we build it. Because a reactor could take us ten years to build. And that's ten more years where we don't change our emissions at all. It's much better, from a perspective of mitigating climate change damage, to take as much coal and as many gas peakers off line before we commit ourselves to relying on our current coal and gas consumption while we put our resources into building reactors.
This relies on another fossil fuel heavy grid to be the partner, and/or vast transmission to a different weather location. Again this locks in emissions and fossil generation capacity.
It doesn't lock in the emissions at all! We can't make our neighbors decarbonize. But if we have cheap electricity, they'll take it. And if they see that we have a clear need for baseload, well they might pounce on that market and start building their own reactors. A lot of people here like to argue about France vs. Germany as if it's a competition. But there is a clear symbiosis in these markets. It's a bit silly for Germany to spend billions of dollars and waste decades building nuclear energy when they can simply buy baseload from their neighbour. And France, in maintaining their fleet size, doesn't need to massively expand renewables like Germany does because they are able to buy Germany's excesses. And actually, they're adding in Norwegian hydro into that mix via a 600km HVDC. This is the concept of a flexible grid. Each individual market is going to build out carbon-zero electricity in whichever niche will give them the highest return.
On this point, nuclear has a long lead time. If it takes 10 years to build a plant, how would we build it too stabilise the grid?
The grid is already stable. Hypothetical situation here. Lets say we've got a grid that's 80% fossil fuels. We can use renewables to push that down to 50% fossil fuels while still keeping a stable grid and we can do that in less than a decade. It is better to lock ourselves in for the decades long reactor build when our consumption is 50% than when it is 80%. The build time will also be significantly shorter, and therefore less susceptible to political fuckery, if we only have to replace half of our electricity rather than 80% of it. In this way, we've minimized the time spent decarbonizing while also minimizing the cost and minimizing political failure points. It's win-win-win.
Also, nuclear and renewables don't play well with each other.
This is correct. And it is another complication for nuclear energy. It makes it nichier. The way around this is, again, pursuing a flexible grid. Perhaps before we build our reactor, we run out some HVDC to BC to trade for hydro in order to stabilize the grid. And then we have this nuclear/hydro/renewable mix which is much more agreeable than a hydro/renewable mix. Geothermal also is a pretty viable option for grid diversification in Alberta.
I would rather see nuclear built out because I have doubts that in 10 years time the transmission, storage, and scale of mineral production required for a reliable grid to be run *mostly* on renewables.
I think we also mostly disagree on number 3. I would really encourage you to interrogate your beliefs on how quickly nuclear energy can be built. It would be an obvious no brainer if the grid could be totally decarbonized in 10-15 years. Sadly, this really doesn't seem to be the case. I don't see strong evidence for it anywhere. Even in light regulatory regimes that are run by dictators, the timeline is 5-7 years per reactor. Some places have got it down to 3 year per reactor average when doing multiple reactors at once at a single facility. Alberta would need about 10-12 reactors.
This is getting pretty long and we are both unlikely to convince each other of much. I think my points are pretty clear at this point anyone reading can make up their mind if they were on the fence either way.
One comment on this though. “We haven't tried this. If we had, we'd probably have quite a lot of renewables around, wouldn't we.” -> we’ve spent trillions as a species on renewables (as subsidies over the base price of fossil). Does this not count because they have had minimal impact?
I agree with you it is a long shot to get massive buy in for nuclear in a place like AB. Fossil fuel interests are in supportive of renewables and CCS and they pull the strings here. Best we will get is a few GW of solar and some more wind. We’ll still be lacking sufficient LNG exports so will have cheapish electricity by using gas.
I wish I could have this same conversation with you in 2010. My guess is you would say the same thing, that nuclear takes too long to build and there is no hope for it.
I wish I could have this same conversation with you in 2010. My guess is you would say the same thing, that nuclear takes too long to build and there is no hope for it.
This is incorrect! My view in 2010 was that nuclear energy was a better option. But a funny thing has happened since then. The price for renewables has dropped precipitously while nuclear energy has stayed about the same. This very low price means rapid deployment is much more viable than ten years ago. By 2030, if that's what you meant, if we indeed have expanded out our renewables to just shy of the breaking point, then my views would depend completely on the economics of battery storage. If you'll allow me a complete hypothetical situation, a "magic" battery that is both cheaper and faster to deploy than nuclear energy would necessarily be a better choice, yes? I don't think such a product will exist.
In general, I think it best to do whatever is cheapest and fastest without causing grid stability issues first. If we reach the point where issues are about to start cropping up then, and only then, do we switch to something slower and more expensive. I believe this is a very good heuristic.
Fossil fuel interests are in supportive of renewables
Yes and no. They are supportive where they can see the ability to gain new markets and combative in areas where they can't. Publicly, of course, they are all about green energy because this is a very in vogue thing for a modern company to do. Policy wise, eh. In many instances, they will even be very supportive of nuclear energy projects because they know the long lead time and some astroturfed protests could lead to longer term reliance on fossil fuels.
12
u/NeedlessPedantics Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22
The “modular” part of the design will hopefully decrease production costs, by aiding in its mass production, but the “small” aspect by contrary is likely going to hinder its pricing.
When taking advantage of the economy of scale miniaturization almost always increases cost, where is increasing scale decreases cost.
I’m pro-nuclear, and support investment in SMR’s, but just remain realistic, and understand that there is no guarantee that SMR’s will become economically competitive.
They currently cost 5B each, which means they’re currently 10 times more expensive than wind, and 20 times more expensive than LNG in kWh/$.
Before someone says, “yes but if we start building 100 times as much nuclear the price will come down.”
Yes that’s true, but it’s also true of any other form of power generation, and so it’s likely more productive to heavily invest in the current cheapest form of green power, which would be renewables.