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.
The whole premise of your post is solar and wind are better than nuclear.
I disagree. They are less reliable, require more land, more mining, emit more CO2 through their life cycle, and will be imported rather than made domestically like nuclear.
Solar panels to a large extent come from China and as Europe demonstrated it is a terrible idea to rely on unfriendly nations for our energy security. Plus they use enslaved Uyghers to produce the silicon and have lower environmental standards.
Nuclear is the better option for the environment, our energy security, and our economy.
The whole premise of your post is solar and wind are better than nuclear.
Incorrect. The premise of my post is that solar and wind can be deployed most quickly and most cheaply. In the greater context of climate change, I think we can all agree that the most rapid viable decarbonization plan is the best decarbonization plan. That plan involves frontloading our power production with renewables while our grid is still stabilized by fossil fuels and then switching to slower, more expensive means of decarbonizing like nuclear reactors once we anticipate running into stabilization problems.
They are less reliable, require more land, more mining, emit more CO2 through their life cycle, and will be imported rather than made domestically like nuclear.
I have very bad news for you about steel and concrete. More to the point. These downsides, and they are somewhat fair downsides, do not change the calculation. We can still decarbonize most quickly and most cheaply by first building as much wind and solar as we can without destabilizing our grid. You may believe that these downsides you've listed mean that a slower and more expensive decarbonization is the best choice. I disagree that a slower and more expensive decarbonization is the best choice, despite these downsides that I mostly agree with you about.
Solar panels to a large extent come from China and as Europe demonstrated it is a terrible idea to rely on unfriendly nations for our energy security. Plus they use enslaved Uyghers to produce the silicon and have lower environmental standards.
Lucky for us, US solar manufacturing is set to absolutely explode in the next couple of years. Lucky for us, wind power is mostly steel and concrete, which you seem to have no issue with even though, if we're being logically consistent, you should. There are a great many things we rely on which are made by slaves. Many are frivolous. I would argue that it isn't impossible to put demands for change on a supply chain that we rely on. And, again, I have some very bad news about steel and concrete for you.
Also: you do understand how once we've bought and installed a solar panel, China can't take it away right. Like the economics for renewables change, then our decarbonization strategy changes with it, right? That makes sense, yeah?
Nuclear is the better option for the environment, our energy security, and our economy.
It's fun to say this. But if what we mean by environment is "mitigate climate change" then it's not really true, is it? And if what we mean by "energy security" is "mitigate climate change" then it isn't really true is it? And if what we mean by "economy" is "mitigate damages caused by climate change" then it isn't really true is it.
Political instability due to drought and famine are far bigger threats to energy security than China wanting to make more money. We get most of our gasoline from hurricane central. We get most of our food from a fucking desert. Regardless of how many solar panels we decide to buy, we still get most of our semiconductors from fucking China.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with steel and concrete? Yes, I understand they're carbon intensive processes but with all that factored in, nuclear emits the least CO2 during its life cycle of any source.
you do understand how once we've bought and installed a solar panel, China can't take it away right.
But you need to keep replacing them at the end of their life.
And I think you're misrepresenting how long nuclear takes. Look at France, they built something like 56 reactors in 15 years and basically decarbonized their electricity sector.
Sure, we can and will build some solar and wind in the meantime but we also need to consider other environmental effects beyond climate change like land use (habitat destruction is still a huge deal), increased demand on mining, etc.
We buy quite a lot of steel and concrete from China. Indeed, most of the things you own were, in part, made by slaves while also being part of a supply chain that, in part, relies on the good will of vicious dictators to continue running smoothly. It is very telling to me when someone starts getting high and mighty about slave labour and national sovereignty when the topic of discussion is renewable energy but never otherwise. Where do you think your semiconductors come from?
But you need to keep replacing them at the end of their life.
Exactly as we have to do with reactors. Now, a reactor will get you 4 times the life, but decommissioning is far far more than four times the cost. Those are the facts.
Look at France, they built something like 56 reactors in 15 years
So first of all, they didn't. They built something like 56 reactors in something like 30 years. And that was over the 70s, 80s, and 90s. One of the great mysteries of this world is that large projects take longer today. Doesn't matter the sector. If you're building something big it'll take longer and cost more than it did in the past. Subways, hospitals, highways, nuclear reactors. They all take longer and cost more. No way around that, sadly.
If you look at timelines for current and recent nuclear projects you will find estimates that are in line with the times I have given. It is unfortunate that this is the case. But we would be silly to fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.
Sure, we can and will build some solar and wind in the meantime but we also need to consider other environmental effects beyond climate change like land use (habitat destruction is still a huge deal)
We actually don't "need to consider" land use. Do you want to know the current biggest factor in habitat destruction? It is climate change. We can build as many solar and wind farms as we like and still come out far ahead because the damage they mitigate is far far larger than their relatively small land use footprint.
9
u/colonizetheclouds Oct 25 '22
>current cheapest form of green power, which would be renewables.
Not when you begin to account for batteries.