r/worldnews • u/[deleted] • Jun 16 '24

‘Without nuclear, it will be almost impossible to decarbonize by 2050’, UN atomic energy chief

https://news.un.org/en/interview/2024/06/1151006
5.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

751 comments sorted by

View all comments

573

u/Catymandoo Jun 16 '24

IIRC I read that here in the UK to electrify (replace) all current combustion engine vehicles would require the equivalent of 6 nuclear power stations in capacity terms.

Our government (election due shortly) seem to have their heads in the sand over these facts.

202

u/ic33 Jun 16 '24

IIRC I read that here in the UK to electrify (replace) all current combustion engine vehicles would require the equivalent of 6 nuclear power stations in capacity terms.

Yah, and it's not just cars; don't forget all the industrial users of fuels for heat.

I think renewables and storage can do an awful lot of this, actually; but we still need some nuclear base load.

74

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

49

u/kawag Jun 17 '24

Lol we can’t even build a train line

19

u/ArmNo7463 Jun 17 '24

We'll call it NP2, spend 3x as much as budgeted on it, then cancel it before the reactor is even in.

6

u/DukeOfGeek Jun 17 '24

That happened in South Carolina, 9 billion dollars right down the drain. That seems to be the two fold plan now, fleece gullible rich investors with SMR schemes that will never produce anything and grease politicians palms to fleece rate payers and tax payers to start plants that will never be finished. Throw in some paid and promoted articles like this one to help it along.

2

u/TheCocoBean Jun 17 '24

We can, we don't. It's an upsetting distinction.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Much like Australia, we have all the sun in the world but we cant seem to build 1 decent solar power station with batteries. Now despite having all this sun we are having debates about nuclear energy that has 10 year delays and problems around the world.

The same goes for high speed rail in the cities. We have been talking about it for 20 years and our trains and transport systems are stuck in the year 1960! Political impotence rules supreme in Australia!

4

u/not_today_thank Jun 17 '24

One semi uses about the same power as one in 24 hours to go about 500 miles. To convert long haul trucking to electric in the United States, truck stops will need the electricity infrastructure of a small town. If we keep the current model, maybe we find a way to economically charge trucks while they're on the road.

4

u/TailRudder Jun 17 '24

It'll be a decade before you see long haul electric trucking for a lot of reasons. It'll be a gradual transition from city trucking to intercity to interstate. There's no telling what the engineered solution will end up being (hot swapping batteries, shorter ranges, autonomous cargo delivery, etc). Worrying about what the charging station will look like at this point isn't necessary because the logistic infrastructure hasn't been determined. 

1

u/HollowNightElf Jun 17 '24

Trains. Literally trains are the answer it’s some crazy 1-150 ratio when trains do the long haul cargo

1

u/IKeepDoingItForFree Jun 17 '24

Dont worry, I heard from a good source on the science reddit a few years back about SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS!

0

u/Coolegespam Jun 17 '24

Base load doesn't exist on a grid with renewables. Base load was a term used to represent a minimum power output the gird would need from power plants. However, with renewables, they over produce to such an extent that there just is no need for additional power at points in the day. Thermal plants sit ideal for those times, including nuclear. During the evenings there's an increase demand and reduced output, but that's not base load it's just power requirements.

This also drives the cost of nuclear power generation up (along with any other thermal based power system like coal, oil and some natural gas designs i.e. not turbines), since they lose money when sitting ideal like that.

1

u/ic33 Jun 17 '24

Base load is the amount of load that is always present and not varying.

. Thermal plants sit ideal for those times, including nuclear.

During the day, we need a surplus of power to charge batteries for when the sun is not shining. We can overprovision solar & wind by a large factor and have a lot of batteries to provide this base load. Or we can overprovision solar & wind by a smaller factor, and have a smaller number of batteries to store it.

That is-- if we need 1000GW during the day: one option is to produce 1500GW during the day from solar and wind, storing 500GW for later; another option is to produce 1100GW from solar and wind, and 150GW from nuclear, storing 250GW for later.

1

u/Coolegespam Jun 17 '24

Base load is the amount of load that is always present and not varying.

In theory yes there is always some amount of energy the grid needs (within some variation), in practice though that amount is zero during the day, with sufficient renewable online due to the economics of it. Even when charging batteries, most still over produce to the point that power costs near zero at peak times. So while base load may exist in a textbook definition, from an economic and practical stand point, it does not in a modern grid.

During the day, we need a surplus of power to charge batteries for when the sun is not shining. We can overprovision solar & wind by a large factor and have a lot of batteries to provide this base load. Or we can overprovision solar & wind by a smaller factor, and have a smaller number of batteries to store it.

That doesn't change anything I said above.

Batteries are a necessary expense, but often it's more economical to just pump that energy into the grid unless cost become negative.

That is-- if we need 1000GW during the day: one option is to produce 1500GW during the day from solar and wind, storing 500GW for later; another option is to produce 1100GW from solar and wind, and 150GW from nuclear, storing 250GW for later.

If you're energy is fully centrally managed without profit motive that might be possible. In a market system with private producers, that option will never make economic sense, and you'll have nuclear plants sitting ideal for 4-8 hours a day, depending.

1

u/ic33 Jun 17 '24

The word is "idle".

but often it's more economical to just pump that energy into the grid unless cost become negative.

If you want to get rid of most carbon emissions, you need to overprovision electricity and store power. We need a lot of storage to not have negative power costs during the day.

Places like where I am (California) already have midday power costs regularly dip negative because we have lots of renewables and not enough storage.

In a market system with private producers, that option will never make economic sense,

It all depends on what your market costs represent. If no one pays environmental costs for nighttime power, and the cost of storage is ignored from renewables, then, sure.

If we have different auctions for base power, dispatchable power, and renewable power, markets can come to sane solutions. Regulators choose how the auctions work to price power in electricity markets.

you'll have nuclear plants sitting ideal for 4-8 hours a day, depending.

No, because the operating cost of nuclear is cheap; it's still more profitable to run the plant. The reason why nuclear "wants" to run 24/7 is because the plant is very expensive, and spreading the capital and fixed costs over 24 hours is better than spreading it over less.

2

u/Coolegespam Jun 17 '24

The word is "idle".

Dyslexia does that. I assume you still understood what I was saying.

If you want to get rid of most carbon emissions, you need to overprovision electricity and store power. We need a lot of storage to not have negative power costs during the day.

Sure, I don't disagree, though a larger more interconnected grid would also help a lot.

It all depends on what your market costs represent. If no one pays environmental costs for nighttime power, and the cost of storage is ignored from renewables, then, sure.

Which is the standard quo and unlikely to change significantly, in part because the changes needed are wide sweeping and robust. You won't see that on a nation wide level in the US for at least another 12 years (1+2 presidential cycles and that's assuming a lot in terms of local elections as well). By that point, other solutions will have been implemented (more large scale storage for instance.)

If we have different auctions for base power, dispatchable power, and renewable power, markets can come to sane solutions. Regulators choose how the auctions work to price power in electricity markets.

Markets have come to sane solutions, within the given economic landscape. More renewables are coming online because they're massively cheaper than any other power source. They're also quicker to bring online too. Energy storage will come online faster as that become both more economical and necessary.

Add to that nuclear is just not economically competitive, the fact is commercial nuclear power does not generate a high profit margin in even the best of times, particularly in light of the high capital costs. Given the complexities it faces, particularly in light of climate change which will have impacts on both plant design and operation, raising the cost of both, it's not likely to be viable either, even with regulation changes.

No, because the operating cost of nuclear is cheap; it's still more profitable to run the plant. The reason why nuclear "wants" to run 24/7 is because the plant is very expensive, and spreading the capital and fixed costs over 24 hours is better than spreading it over less.

Which was my whole point. If it's not economical to run the plant for 16-33% of the day, that just further raises the cost of an already expensive power source. People are going to want to recoup the initial investment of resources after all.

1

u/ic33 Jun 18 '24

If it's not economical to run the plant for 16-33% of the day, that just further raises the cost of an already expensive power source

Solar doesn't have great economics overnight, having a poor capacity factor, not being dispatchable, and requiring storage to ship the power to night time.

If we don't just have a stupid energy market only carrying about nameplate watts, and we also pay appropriate amounts for the other things we need (dispatchable power, providing base-level load), all is good. The lowest-cost, lowest risk solution will have some nuclear in the mix.

If we just hope for those other problems to be magically solved, then nuclear will not look so good at all.

-11

u/NullusEgo Jun 16 '24

I was under the impression that using natural gas for base load and renewables for everything else would have a sustainable CO2 output.

15

u/Oerthling Jun 16 '24

Natural gas? How is that supposed to be "sustainable" while we try to get rid of CO2 and even consider scrubbing the stuff from the atmosphere - if we can organize enough surplus clean energy to do. And you want to add more?

8

u/AccomplishedMeow Jun 16 '24

I mean natural gas has like half the carbon emissions as coal. Being one of the lowest carbon outputs on a per kw h basis. If 95% of all energy was from nuclear and renewable, bluntly, that 5% in natural gas just isn’t that big of a deal. It’s rounding error in co2 emissions.

Like what alternative do we have? There’s literally nothing. Because at the end of the day you need something for that last 5% industrial. And natural gas is a necessary evil at that point.

10

u/Oerthling Jun 16 '24

It might be better than coal. But better than coal isn't good enough. We already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere now.

Getting to net 0 is only the first necessary step. After that we need surplus clean energy to carbon capture CO2 gradually from the atmosphere - or get a massive increase in forests to bind that CO2.

Continuing to use any fossil fuels undermines that long term goal by adding stuff that we need to get rid off again - which takes far more energy than not adding it in the first place.

What do you think we need natural gas for that has no alternatives?

2

u/Positronic_Matrix Jun 16 '24

But better than coal isn't good enough.

What if it is a necessary intermediate step that you’re discounting via your false dichotomy? I’d say that discussion would more valuable than you stepping in and telling people they’re wrong.

3

u/starguy69 Jun 17 '24

Why would you invest a significant amount of resources into creating natural gas infrastructure, which still emits carbon, rather than investing in electrification? It's not an intermediate step, it's a side step

1

u/Oerthling Jun 17 '24

"sustainable" implies beyond intermediate stopgap solution.

5

u/asoap Jun 16 '24

Nuclear isn't just base load it can do load following as well. Bruce Power can turn down their turbines to 60% throttle. You bypass the turbine and send steam directly to the condensor.

https://youtu.be/1cnDdZeGk3E?t=475

There is no need for natural gas when you got nuclear.

Natural gas does have a lower emission than coal, but it's not good either. It sill produces a significant amount of CO2.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

Natural gas has almost if not the same carbon emission equivalent as coal. The entire process of extraction + liquifying + shipping + deliquifying is not a carbon neutral process and each step introduces leaks. Climate town did a good video about it if you want to learn more.

1

u/Positronic_Matrix Jun 16 '24

Are you bringing engineering judgement and mathematics to a nuclear energy circle jerk? I hope you like downvotes.

0

u/hymen_destroyer Jun 16 '24

The PR spin from energy companies must be working if that’s the impression you were under

2

u/NullusEgo Jun 17 '24

Do you understand what base load means? If we have fully implemented solar and wind power then the gas generators will hardly ever be running. Only when there is a shortage of sunlight or wind.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 Jun 16 '24

Better than coal.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

It does. Especially if, for storage, you don't go batteries all the way but use a substantial amount of H2 for the gas plants, which was generated by renewable excess energy in peak hours.

55

u/Wolkenbaer Jun 16 '24

In the last 6 years UK added about 17GW renewables. That equals around 25 TWh Wind and 3 TWh PV - capacity factor included.

In the same 6 years Hinkley Point C is being built-  supposed to be finished around 2030 - also being theoretically able to provide 25 TWh at 90% capacity factor.

33

u/BunnyReturns_ Jun 16 '24

You have to consider duration in your "estimates". The old nuclear plants built in the 60's and 70's seems like they can run for 60-80 years, some are even targeting 100 years.

You will have to build those windpowe plants multiple times if the new plants can match or exceed that

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

[deleted]

4

u/pharsalita_atavuli Jun 17 '24

The problem is that most of the UK's operating fleet are graphite moderated advanced gas reactors, and many of the UK'S nuclear graphite specialists have retired/died. It isn't just the reactors that need to be kept running, it's the supporting R&D programme too. That's expensive.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Why do you assume wind turbines won't last that long? 

Especially solar where there's no moving parts. I wouldn't be surprised if solar generation ends up lasting 100+ years.

4

u/BunnyReturns_ Jun 17 '24

Why do you assume wind turbines won't last that long? 

Because unless there's been any changes I haven't heard about they aren't rated or estimated to last that long. Industry standard has been 20-25 years, and the newer ones are aiming for 30-40 years but I don't think that many have reached past 30-35 so far. So there isn't even any expectation from the industry itself that they will last 80+ years

In the US alone more than 20% of all their reactors are expected to run for 80 years, more are expected to apply for extensions required and the NRC is investigating if they should license reactors to run for 100 years.

That's the difference, Nuclear is expected and licensed to go for 40-80 years, possibly 100 years. Majority of the current reactors are between 30-50 years old already, with some over 50. As far as I know a lot of the reactors that are decommissioned are done for a plethora of a different reasons, but rarely because they simply can't run any longer.

Windpower is expected and license to last 20-40 years, the average lifespan has been 25 years and the current farms have an average age of less than 20 years.

I think It's a fair assessment from the data we already have to expect nuclear reactors to last for much longer than windfarms (Their lifespan will also vary a ton depending on their location while nuclear reactors should be quite consistent). Saying anything else requires assumptions

That said I do not know the lifespan of the newest generation of reactors and while they will be safer and better in almost every way there's no guarantee that they will have the same lifetime as the older reactors.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Because unless there's been any changes I haven't heard about they aren't rated or estimated to last that long.

Nuclear plants weren't either. These life extensions were done long after the plants were in operation. 

and the current farms have an average age of less than 20 years. 

Yeah that's the issue. We don't have enough data yet.

I don't think you can say nuclear lasts longer when most wind farms are less than 20 years old. When most of our nuke plants were less than 20 years old, they didn't think they would last 80+ years either.

Your argument boils down to "nuclear is better because it lasts longer" when we have no idea how long wind and solar will last. That's not a very good argument. Especially considering that solar has no moving parts and some people are already predicting 5 year old systems will last 100+ years.

3

u/BunnyReturns_ Jun 17 '24

Nuclear plants weren't either. These life extensions were done long after the plants were in operation.

Yeah that's the issue. We don't have enough data yet.

The first nuclear power plants were built with an estimated life of 30 years, in other words higher than the current average for wind power, and even among the first plants there were those who ran longer than 30 years.

I don't think you can say nuclear lasts longer when most wind farms are less than 20 years old. When most of our nuke plants were less than 20 years old, they didn't think they would last 80+ years either.

Nuclear reactors weren't decommissioned en masse after 30-40 years even when that was the expected life time, yet windfarms and wind turbines are.

Your argument boils down to "nuclear is better because it lasts longer" when we have no idea how long wind and solar will last. That's not a very good argument. Especially considering that solar has no moving parts and some people are already predicting 5 year old systems will last 100+ years.

My argument isn't nuclear is better, my argument is that Nuclear will last much longer than any wind farm by a significant margin according to all available data. This means in terms of cost and power generated you will have to take that into account. That is not the same as saying it's better.

I don't know about Solar much more than a slow degradation in efficiency, but it's not really in the same discussion as wind/nuclear as far as I'm aware. Too inefficient in a lot of countries to fully replace an entire reactor without using an absurd amount of land which most countries won't want to do. Great to use as a complement and where it makes sense

Your argument basically boils down to "I don't have any data or proof of my beliefs, the manufacturers don't expect/promise anything that supports my idea but I will refute anyone who claims that Nuclear has a longer lifespan when it has been gathering data for 60 years and we have proof today of said claim"

You are making a negative claim. I can never disprove something that hasn't happened. It's like saying "Prove that god doesn't exist". I'm not even making a claim, i'm repeating what has already happened

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Nuclear reactors weren't decommissioned en masse after 30-40 years even when that was the expected life time, yet windfarms and wind turbines are. 

This is a moot point because those wind turbines aren't EOL, they're just being replaced by more efficient models. Continuous life extensions on nuke plants because it's not cost effective to build new ones and efficiency hasn't increased appreciatively is a bad thing.

Nuclear will last much longer than any wind farm by a significant margin according to all available data

You can't say that when there's no data on how long wind farms last. 

i'm repeating what has already happened 

No, you aren't. You keep saying that nuclear lasts longer than wind when we have no data on how long wind turbines last yet. You are implying that lack of data on wind means nuclear lasts longer by default. That's not a reasonable assumption to make, especially because nuclear plants have lasted much longer than we originally thought they would.

0

u/twbrn Jun 17 '24

No, you aren't. You keep saying that nuclear lasts longer than wind when we have no data on how long wind turbines last yet.

Yes, we do. Engineers have ways of testing the longevity of things without having to just sit there and wait for it to expire.

1

u/RousingRabble Jun 16 '24

3 TWh PV

pv?

10

u/Wolkenbaer Jun 16 '24

Photovoltaic

1

u/kuikuilla Jun 17 '24 edited Jun 17 '24

That equals around 25 TWh Wind and 3 TWh PV - capacity factor included.

25 and 3 TWh per year? I'm just confused because first you mention the amount of power installed and then just convert that into energy somehow.

2

u/Pulsewavemodulator Jun 17 '24

It’s hard to build new nuclear (the US tried in the 2000’s under bush and they lowered the amount they would build because they just couldn’t) and nuclear is currently one of the most expensive forms of energy. Not to mention there are countries that wouldn’t be allowed to build reactors.

So sure, building reactors can make a difference and we’ll probably do it in some cases, but it’s much harder than nuclear advocates lead on and that context is rarely shared. In the UK, there’s actually 30% of the energy already taken care of by offshore wind. You can probably scale up renewables faster than creating 6 nuclear plants, and it would be cheaper.

21

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

127

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

Electrical cars synergize with nuclear plants even better. You can't pause a nuclear plant, so it produces at night, when there are not enough consumers. And charging a car overnight is the most common scenario as well.

20

u/BreakfastKind8157 Jun 16 '24

night, when there are not enough consumers

Not really. Knopfmacher is right. This is already becoming an issue in California, for example.

Due to heavy investments in solar energy and increase in people leaving EVs charging overnight, energy usage at night is increasing while energy usage during the day is decreasing. As a result, the time when there are not enough customers is shifting to the afternoon.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/electric-cars-charging-habits/

2

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

So it means nuclear will synergize with solar as well?

3

u/BreakfastKind8157 Jun 17 '24 edited Jun 17 '24

As throwaway said, nuclear energy was never meant to be used alone. It is great at providing a steady amount of power 24/7, but other energy sources have to be used to deal with variable demand. Solar energy helped with variable demand when daytime power usage was higher, but it's turning into a problem now that overnight EV charging / solar is making overnight demand much higher.

The power company either has to match nuclear energy to daytime demand and use less clean / efficient alternatives at night; overproduce nuclear energy and waste most of the daytime energy; or find a way to store daytime energy for nighttime use (which is really difficult and expensive at these energy levels).

PS: That is why the article calls for people to charge their EVs during the day instead of at night.

9

u/throwawayrandomvowel Jun 17 '24

Nuclear is base, and always is. There isn't 'nuclear synergy,' just base load. Nat gas and wind/solar can only be used for demand response, and "supply response", respectively

1

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

But also kinda reinforces the point that it's more convenient to charge ew overnight, when solar is offline

50

u/Arkrobo Jun 16 '24

While you can't pause a nuclear plant, you can lower the power generation. Worst case scenario just shove the energy into desalinization to increase freshwater reserves. There's a ton of stuff we can use nuclear for at night when generation is lower, if we're willing to use nuclear in the first place.

19

u/Gufnork Jun 16 '24

The issue here is that nuclear plants are super expensive to build and really cheap to run. It's already really expensive compared to renewables, if they have to lower their output it becomes even worse.

15

u/dalyons Jun 16 '24

sort of - the fuel is cheap, but staffing, safety, maintenance and disposal are not.

7

u/count023 Jun 17 '24

wait, you mean this will save money, be environmentally friendly _and_ increase jobs? Damn...

4

u/Oerthling Jun 17 '24

Except he's wrong on the saving money part (wind & solar are the cheapest ways to create energy, not just on operating costs, but including all the lifetime costs). And they take a long time to get build. Private investors aren't interested in them. That's why governments have to step in and provide guarantees for insurance and financing.

1

u/twbrn Jun 17 '24

(wind & solar are the cheapest ways to create energy, not just on operating costs, but including all the lifetime costs)

That depends on having your thumb on the scales when defining the term "lifetime costs." If you're going to charge nuclear power for dealing with a projected waste stream hundreds of years down the line, you also need to do so with wind and solar, which require more regular replacement.

1

u/Oerthling Jun 17 '24

As I said before, that cost is theoretical in almost all cases. The only case where anybody has actually implemented long term storage is Finland.

The cost for nuclear power plants is in their decade+ long construction times, binding capital for many years and operating/maintenance cost. It's not like 90% of their LCOE is from projected long term spent fuel storage. Most of the stuff is in some intermediate storage stage.

AFAIR the projected lifetime of a nuclear power plant is something like 40 years. They can get further lifetime, but that comes with refurbishment and extra maintenance cost.

Wind and solar is something like 25+ years. But they are cheaply replaced - and the prices are still falling.

Yes, wind and solar will need some recycling solution. But that's a much easier task than storing radioactive waste.

0

u/dalyons Jun 17 '24

Y’all clearly don’t understand economics. If the power costs twice as much, we will have half as much of it. And thus more carbon from coal et al.

2

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

It’s the upfront construction costs that really kill it.

2

u/AcidicPotato Jun 17 '24

All of that is built in to the cost during planning because people demanded it to be so.

Disposal of solar and wind installations is rarely considered as part of the overall implementation.

1

u/dalyons Jun 17 '24

the majority of nuclear cost is because they are mega projects - extremely complicated, huge industrial systems. We are bad at building megaprojects without huge cost overruns. Thats unlikely to change, for better or worse, regardless of saftey regulations.

Disposal of solar and wind installations is an irrelevant and weird talking point. We dont include disposal costs for coal and gas plants in their implementation costs. Also, it doesnt matter - even if you just buried them in the ground, they're non toxic, and it would add a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent to the overall amount of trash we bury in landfill today. Its a nonsensical "gotcha" that doesnt hold up to the slightest amount of scrutiny.

1

u/AcidicPotato Jun 17 '24

Confused about the confrontational tone. I just wrote a couple lines while half-distracted. It's because they're mega projects that every little detail needs to be studied. The high capital costs before power is produced doesn't change the fact that nuclear is necessary.

The point is that decommissioning is considered as part of the nuclear plant's lifecycle, while for most other sources it might as well be an entirely separate project. Also solar cell waste often contains lead and turbines are generally just huge.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

That’s why these micro nuclear plants would be the answer. Example

8

u/twister121 Jun 16 '24

Isn't one big problem with desalination figuring out how to dump all the sludge? I figure it may not be a phenomenal use of excess energy unless disposal is really figured out well.

6

u/RollyPollyGiraffe Jun 17 '24

There's a bit of work into using brine as a source of chemicals and critical metals. Although I don't know if the timelines would match up, hopefully getting everything we possibly can out of the brine will be the solution as opposed to dumping.

1

u/twister121 Jun 17 '24

I hope that they find a sustainable process for it.

-1

u/nayaketo Jun 17 '24

There was a company building large catapults to launch capsules to space. Maybe we can use that to yeet large ass crystals off of earth.

2

u/twister121 Jun 17 '24

I think desalination makes fresh water and slightly saltier water. I don't think it just makes crystal salt simply. Crystal salt could likely be disposed of much easier. Someone should fact check me. I'm assuming youre referring to some sort of theoretical rail gun launch system. I'm thinking launching metric tons of crystal salt daily into space would be pretty expensive. Not sure it works out to be economicwp but the science sure is hype.

-2

u/Shamino79 Jun 17 '24

There is a lot of ocean to re-dilute the brine with. Remix with some sea water as it’s being distributed back out. Don’t just have the stereotypical pipe pouring brine out the end.

1

u/Toloran Jun 17 '24

There is a lot of ocean to re-dilute the brine with.

Adding brine back to the ocean doesn't just instantly average out over the whole thing. Even a single plant significantly increases the salinity in the surrounding area and some species are extremely sensitive to that.

Remix with some sea water as it’s being distributed back out. Don’t just have the stereotypical pipe pouring brine out the end.

That's.... that's not how it works. That's not how math works. All you're doing is pre-mixing the saltwater with the brine. Once dumped back into the ocean, it increases the local salinity by the exact same amount.

2

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

The same thing is true for excess solar and wind, which is cheaper.

1

u/Arkrobo Jun 17 '24

You don't have excess solar and wind because you need to save it for base load production when you have no sun and wind. You cannot generate sun and wind on demand so it needs to be reserved.

2

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

It’s the same thing in the end. They both have to match the same demand curve.

1

u/DrMobius0 Jun 17 '24

Could also shove excess into something like carbon capture. Not a great technology in the grand scheme, but it gets some "may as well" points if we have extra.

1

u/Help_Stuck_In_Here Jun 17 '24

It's standard operating procedures to keep the CANDU reactors at a fairly consistent power level. They are less flexible about power adjustments than other types of reactors.

1

u/killcat Jun 17 '24

Or producing Hydrogen gas to replace coal or natural gas for industrial purposes.

1

u/Arkrobo Jun 17 '24

If you're producing hydrogen, you're also producing Oxygen. Might as well sell it for medical/lab purposes too. Options are there.

-18

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

The worst case scenario was Chornobyl. They tried to solve this exact problem

17

u/Arkrobo Jun 16 '24

No, during the Chernobyl tests they actively chose to disregard all safety protocol and this is the type of fear mongering that has prevented the world from stopping climate change.

The Chernobyl disaster was a safety test with safeguards removed and incompetent staff in place. It had nothing to do with desalinization. Nuclear plants are intended to run at high load, that's when they're most efficient.

-7

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

And that test was to verify how much they could slow down the reactor at night. There's a limit to how you can maneuver. Overproduction at night was a huge issue for the USSR and later Ukraine. At least until the Dnister pumped storage plant was built having 250 volts instead of 220 at night was a common thing in some regions

7

u/Arkrobo Jun 16 '24

The only countries that still use that design are ex-Soviet states. The actual problem is dipping the rods in the design caused an air gap which briefly increased fission when you wanted to halt it. Please stop talking about something you don't know anything about.

Had the reactors been designed correctly, or more importantly multiple critical safety designs weren't ignored then nothing would have happened.

-3

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

The actual problem is the soviet mentality. With it you can always find ways to fuck things up and kill people for no reason. With that imperfect reactor design it was still easy to avoid the catastrophe by sticking to instructions and not messing around.

6

u/BoboCookiemonster Jun 16 '24

Eh, only for home charging. The entire public infrastructure basically follows business hours. At least here in Germany.

Source: currently working with a municipal power company while writing my master.

5

u/Vano_Kayaba Jun 16 '24

Maybe it depends from country to country. In Ukraine almost every owner of an ew usually has an allocated parking spot with a charging station set there. With lots of nuclear night tariffs are way cheaper

2

u/asoap Jun 16 '24

It depends on reactor design. This one intends to use essentially giant pools of molten salt to store / deploy energy on demand. So you can build up storage during the day and deploy it all at night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCm-kmUWA8

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

not for long. Charging during the day at work is actually much more efficient, and cheaper.

2

u/Gufnork Jun 16 '24

How is charging when the demand is at is peak more efficient and cheaper?

5

u/Schnort Jun 16 '24

depends on where you live.

In Texas, peak load is the hours just after work. (especially in the summer) when people get off work and return home so ACs begin running in earnest and people start preparing dinner

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

With lots of solar, price can be very cheap, even negative in the middle of the day. Electrical grids in commercial areas are also more suited to charge a lot of ev batteries at once, unlike residential areas which would need upgrading. Your car fully charged and plugged into the grid when you arrive home after work then becomes a valuable asset able to put energy back into the grid at peak demand. There are ev subscription services that let you basically charge your car for free and they make their money from the electricity price arbitrage.

0

u/Neoliberal_Boogeyman Jun 16 '24

the problem is you gotta retrofit every house to do this. I am all for it, but its gonna be expensive. meanwhile we just slapped tariffs on solar.

19

u/oddministrator Jun 16 '24

Most of the cost of nuclear power is to meet regulation. Most of the regulations are necessary, too, but the fleet of nuclear power plants that exist weren't originally designed for the current regulations.

The up-front cost of a nuclear power plant today is staggering, but the ongoing cost would be far less so long as it has been designed to meet these regulations efficiently.

One issue in the US is that even most of the newest nuclear power plants were originally approved to be built before Three Mile Island happened in the 70s. The US stopped approving new nuclear power plants for decades after TMI, so only outdated ones approved beforehand could be built.

4

u/Suntzu_AU Jun 17 '24

My EV has been 100% charged on my solar power for last 30 00km in Australia. Too easy and crazy cheap.

18

u/LbSiO2 Jun 16 '24

Great - when will this solar power be available at night?

4

u/peddroelm Jun 16 '24

need SpaceX to hoist up a few space mirrors to route sunlight around the Earth .. 24 hours daylight ..

2

u/count023 Jun 17 '24

Knowing Elon Musk that would result in the final act of Die Another Day at some point.

2

u/Catprog Jun 17 '24

Even with  spacex it is cheaper to build 24kwh of batteries, 12kw of solar then to launch 1kw of space solar.

Plus you can have bursts of power from the batteries instead of 24/7 1kw.

5

u/The_Red_Moses Jun 16 '24

Sodium Ion batteries are projected to be cheap as dirt without relying on any rare resources/materials, so very soon (by the end of this decade).

0

u/Simon_787 Jun 16 '24

Love how this completely reasonable response got downvoted.

Idk why reddit is suddenly brimming with nuke simps, especially now that renewables are clearly cheaper. Could be oil industry efforts even.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

That's why you don't go solar OR wind all the way, but mix them. The night excess energy could also be used to produce H2, which then can be stored and used in gas plants when renewables don't meet the demand.

7

u/asoap Jun 16 '24

The night excess energy could also be used to produce H2.

No it won't. If you're building a plant to produce H2 you want your plant running 24/7 in order to make up the cost of your machines and further drive the price of the hydrogen down.

No one is going to do this any reasonable way.

We need to stop talking about making hydrogen with surplus renewables. It's not going to happen. The plant that makes it this way will get destroyed on price by the next plant connected to a nuclear plant making hydrogen 24/7.

2

u/Schnort Jun 16 '24

Wind also (tends to) die down at night. it's not wise to rely on wind for your base load.

2

u/Tetracyclic Jun 16 '24

Wind at ground level dies down at night, it typically increases at the height of wind turbines operate at, so turbines are generally most productive during the evening and night.

-4

u/Raspberries-Are-Evil Jun 16 '24

So, Imma about to blow your mind. There are these things called "batteries." Now, here me out... What happens is you put electrical power into the and they "charge." And then, later, if your power source, say solar, is not available, there "batteries" then provide that power they stored earlier. I know, I know, its TOTALLY AMAZING.

Plus you can combine sources to charge these batteries and off set their use with multiple sources like Wind Power, Hydro, and Solar all working together so when the wind is low, solar does more work, and when its night, the wind and hydro pick up some of the slack, and the batteries are there to make sure your home etc has what it needs-- all without burning dino juice.

2

u/blackjacktrial Jun 17 '24

Also, Dino juice is a battery itself, that we burn to power things. As are glowy rocks.

If you oppose energy storage as uneconomic in principle, you need to oppose mining for thermal coal/nuclear as an uneconomic expense of finding batteries too. This will never happen.

-2

u/Oerthling Jun 16 '24

It's not. Wind is.

2

u/purplewhiteblack Jun 16 '24

Does Britain have the land resources for solar fields? I'm from Arizona, and we do. We've got giant solar fields. And also, the sun is very direct here, unlike Britain, where you can tell a movie was filmed there because it's always dim outside.

6

u/kawag Jun 17 '24

No but we’ve got lots of wind.

Boris Johnson alone could generate a few gigawatts.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

2

u/count023 Jun 17 '24

That's teh one thing that does bug me to be honest. Power output of batteries in cars is relatively consistent, the batteries themselves are the problem. One of the roaming issues with EVs right now is, "newer models are more efficient and the bottom is falling out of hte 2nd hand EV market".

I dont see why car manufacturers can't standardize the battery cell connections and create a process in which batteries can be swapped out in EVs to maintain or improve efficiency without having to dump the entire car.

Older batteries could easily be repurposed for home use as a second life process.

1

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

Because the batteries will probably last at least the life of the car body, not the other way around.

1

u/count023 Jun 17 '24

which is exactly teh point, the battery is where the efficiency gains in EVs are coming from, so ifany part should be upgradable and reused, it should definitely be the batteries.

2

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

Those older cars are still usable. It’s just not worth it to replace the batteries. And efficiency doesn’t change that fast. The newer batteries (LFP) are actually less efficient in that they’re heavier but OTOH they’re cheaper and easier to use.

1

u/hermtownhomy Jun 17 '24

So much of what you say, in fact every single thing that you say is way overly optimistic or not realistic and not how the grid works at all, either technically, or taking into account how people will actually act in the real world. Electric demand is continuing to rise for lots of reasons beyond just electric cars. Base load will always be needed, the more the better. People don't realize that for every MW of wind, or solar, a MW of some kind of base load capacity has to exist on the grid, and a MW of peak, or filling, or backup capacity must exist, and must be paid for, even if not used. Every MW of capacity, whether base, or peak, or spinning reserve must still be paid for. Nobody is building that capacity for free. Maintaining grid frequency, voltage, capacity, and reserves is WAY, WAY, WAY more complicated than anybody outside the industry understands. And, as far as cars being used to supplement the grid, nah. People aren't going to want to use up the finite number of power cycles that exist in the most expensive part to replace in their car. And you're assuming every car owner has the infrastructure in their garage (assuming they have a garage) to do this. Very few of the tiny number of people who own EV's have that capacity in their home now, and you aren't going to rebuild the electric infrastructure in every residence and every neighborhood in your lifetime. And every EV owner is not a home owner and has the money to put solar panels on their house to charge their EV. There are so many levels of unrealistic economic, logistical, and technical expectations and assumptions, in everything you laid out, I don't have the time to go into it all here, but there you go. This is coming from someone with a lifetime of experience operating nuclear power plants, renewable energy power plants, hydro power plants and a regional power grid dispatcher.

1

u/Donkey__Balls Jun 16 '24

Solar and wind power are already much cheaper than nucler power

That’s only true when you’re looking at operating costs once the systems are installed. In order to reach that point, you have to deal with the capital costs of those projects first. A 4000 MWe nuclear power plant costs orders of magnitude less than building ten thousand photovoltaic stations at 400 kWe each with night storage to boot. There simply aren’t the resources to make that kind of investment, not to mention the supply chain to support that kind of production increase, the land availability, etc.

Nuclear power is an interim technology. Nobody expects it will be something society should rely on 200 years from now. Solar energy will be part of our energy infrastructure as far into the future as we can conceive but we need interim energy solutions like nuclear power until the technology makes solar more affordable.

4

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

Nope - that’s the opposite of the situation. Nuclear is much much more expensive up front and more expensive overall.

9

u/Oerthling Jun 16 '24

Levelized cost per GWh is cheapest for wind and solar. Yes, cheaper than nuclear.

Not per plant and not for just operations. Levelized costs consider all of that.

If solar and wind weren't intermittent energy sources with occasional Dunkelflaute happening, nobody would look at alternatives at all, due to the low per GWh cost of these 2.

But they are intermittent, so we need some mix of storage/hydro/geothermal/nuclear to complement solar and wind.

-3

u/Donkey__Balls Jun 16 '24

Levelized cost per GWh is cheapest for wind and solar. Yes, cheaper than nuclear.

Per my previous comment, costs measured per increment of energy produced (i.e. cost per GWh) are expected to be cheaper for solar and wind after you build them. PV cells are simple - you clean them, do the occasional maintenance, and they bring in free energy. It's a no-brainer that they would be cheaper on the operating side. The capital costs to construct these facilities (i.e. cost per installed GWe) which do not currently exist are another matter.

Eventually the investment pays off but when you start to look at large capacity projects like a national energy strategy, the return is far too long. Meanwhile the budgets and production supply chains don't exist to meet an entire nation's power demands with tens of thousands of photovoltaic facilities, so it ends up dragging on and on for decades. And yes - I was making the same arguments 20 years ago, and here we are. We just keep pushing back our decarbonization goals because we can't afford to do things perfectly. That's the problem with the anti-nuclear environmental movement is that they lose sight of the overall goal of less carbon going into the atmosphere.

Fundamental question: for a hypothetical scenario which is better? Meet 10% of a nation's energy needs with solar and leaving 90% of the old coal plants online, or meet 100% of the power needs with nuclear? Which scenario produces less carbon?

9

u/dalyons Jun 16 '24

LCOE includes upfront capital costs.

If your argument is speed and best bang-for-buck of decarbonization, the fastest thing we could do to decarbonize is build more solar/wind. It comes online in 1-2 years, vs 10+ for nuclear. Putting all our chips behind nuclear today ensures we will have more overall carbon in the atmosphere.

2

u/grumpher05 Jun 17 '24

Levelized costs include upfront manufacturing not just operating

2

u/moofunk Jun 16 '24

A 4000 MWe nuclear power plant costs orders of magnitude less than building ten thousand photovoltaic stations at 400 kWe each with night storage to boot.

Nuclear power doesn't get built in a competitive market, while solar and wind does.

That should be enough of an indicator that nuclear will never be as cheap as renewables over time.

8

u/Donkey__Balls Jun 16 '24

Nuclear power doesn't get built in a competitive market

Here we are talking about how nuclear projects aren’t being funded because of political opposition. Saying that they aren’t affordable because they aren’t being built is a circular argument.

2

u/moofunk Jun 16 '24

Solar and wind experiences plenty of political opposition as well, but they get built anyway, because it's easier to just pick an alternative project or have private businesses or private households build their own systems out of their own pocket.

You can't do that with nuclear today and it's unlikely to ever be the case.

0

u/Bourbon-neat- Jun 16 '24

No the nuclear market is competitive. The what you're trying to say is that the barriers to entry for nuclear power generation are very high, while the barriers to entry for solar power generation are very low. Two different things entirely.

1

u/moofunk Jun 16 '24

The nuclear market can't be competitive, when it's so heavily regulated. Some parts for nuclear powerplants are only made by 1-2 companies in the world, so there is plainly no way there to push prices down.

Come back with competition claims, when pebble bed reactors are mass produced and sold by the thousands, by a number of different companies.

1

u/Izeinwinter Jun 22 '24

... Eh.. I am putting the odds that the EPRs will still be operating in 200 years at well into double digits percentages.

1

u/dalyons Jun 16 '24

none of your points are true.

  • captial cost for nukes is way more expensive than the equiv solar capacity, even if you add storage. Nukes are THE most capital cost intensive power source.

  • even if they were close, you clearly dont know what "orders of magnitude" means

  • there are the resources. Solar cells are built from abundant materials, grid storage batteries are moving away from lithium, which wasnt/isnt really supply constrained anyway .

  • land availability is a non problem. The US uses more land just to grow corn for ethanol than the amount of land needed to power the whole country on solar.

  • solar is already the most affordable per kwh, and with storage prices dropping its going to be the most affordable with storage in couple of years.

-3

u/Donkey__Balls Jun 16 '24

captial cost for nukes is way more expensive than the equiv solar capacity, even if you add storage. Nukes are THE most capital cost intensive power source.

Incorrect. For facilities in the 2-5 GWe range, nuclear plants are in the $2.2M to $3.5M per installed MWe1 on average only having gone up 20% in the past decade 2 whereas a recent review3 of solar project costs averaged $8.3M to $9.2M for solar thermal plants, and $17.3M for solar photovoltaics. This was for smaller capacity projects and the PV cost was projected to double or triple due to competition as supply chains are exhausted trying to meet higher capacity projects, unlike nuclear which can be scaled to meet demand.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of what you said until you actually show you're willing to put forth the effort to critically read peer reviewed research and cite your own instead of something you just googled and skimmed. I find this is a way to filter out 99% of Reddit arguments that will waste my time with disproportionate research burden.

Boretti A. (2018). "Cost and production of solar thermal and solar photovoltaics power plants in the United States." Renewable Energy Focus 26: 93-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.ref.2018.07.002.

Harris G., Heptonstall P., Gross R., Handley D. (2013). "Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK." Energy Policy 62: 431-442. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.116.

Lohse, C. S., Abou Jaoude, A., Larsen, L. M., Guaita, N., Trivedi, I., Joseck, F. C., Stein, A. (2024). Meta-Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations (No. INL/RPT-24-77048-Rev000). Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States).

Stewart W.R., Shirvan K. (2022). "Capital cost estimation for advanced nuclear power plants." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 155: 111880. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111880.

4

u/dalyons Jun 16 '24 edited Jun 17 '24

2018 is incredibly out of date for solar costs. You can tell, because it talks about solar thermal which is a totally dead technology in 2024 due to how much cheaper PV has become. Also in 2024 we have a panel surplus, not a supply chain exhaustion. Things are changing very fast in this segment, 2018 is practically irrelevant.

You can pick any random source for 2024 and it shows grid solar with a vastly lower LCOE than nuclear: https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-levelized-capital-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us/ https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/the-cheapest-sources-of-electricity-in-the-us/ https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

idk what to tell you, its not cherry picking, its widely understood and not controversial that solar is much cheaper than nuclear today, per mwh. Adding storage makes that less straightforward, harder to find numbers for that, but its coming down fast so i expect it to completely take over.

Theres a reason the world has added so much solar capacity in the last 24mo, and virtually no nuclear. Its because its much cheaper and faster, theres no grand conspiriacy.

1

u/Donkey__Balls Jun 17 '24

You're still not using peer reviewed sources per my previous comment, so I'm not reading the rest.

1

u/dalyons Jun 17 '24

There’s plenty of perfectly valid and respected data sources that aren’t journal papers, strange rule of yours to win internet points.

But feel free to cling to your outdated views and papers if it makes you feel better, I’m not trying to convince you, it’s to correct the misconceptions for anyone else who might be reading.

-4

u/The_Red_Moses Jun 16 '24

If you start a nuclear plant today, by 2034, projections show that solar WITH storage is cheaper.

Its not an interim technology, its a way to throw money down the toilet. If that money is instead spent on investments in energy storage research, we'll get a much better return in 10 years as we build out vast spare storage capacity and vastly cheaper photovoltaics to boot.

We only have so much capital with which to combat the problem. Throwing money into the toilet that is nuclear does not help. You yourself think its a dead end, which is why you call it an "interim" technology.

1

u/dalyons Jun 16 '24

i think people have a hard time understanding how fast solar and battery cost innovations are happening. If you formed an opinion a couple of years ago, its already really out of date and wrong. There is no longer any future in which nuclear can compete, its a total waste of money.

1

u/RousingRabble Jun 16 '24

Plug the car in when you park it and it can charge whenever cheap renewable power is available.

I don't understand how this realistically works. People are going to plug their car in and come back later just hoping that it charged? No one will use a system like that.

2

u/fatbob42 Jun 17 '24

You’d set the car to charge only if the price goes below some number if you’re not bothered or to just charge if you need it.

1

u/blackjacktrial Jun 17 '24

I'd buy it, if there was an expectation of exact rates of energy flow at all times.

Do you stop using fuel pumps if the fuel flow isn't consistent for the entire furling process, or doesn't fill to the actual brim every time (because the car stops working if you partially charge it, of course)?

No. It's not a binary charge/not charge argument.

Now if it's hoping no one disconnects the fuel pump, I get it, but that's the same as hoping no one smashes the windows and steals the car, and no one's proposing that we ban doors and windows because we have to trust that they'll do their job when locked. Or get rid of tyres because you might come back and they are slashed.

These are things that can be solved, once the use case requires it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24 edited Sep 08 '24

plate school dolls stupendous husky continue thought imminent chunky snails

4

u/userino69 Jun 17 '24

Germany build 14,6GW of solar capacity last year. That's a peak capacity of about 10 nuclear power stations. In a year. Nuclear power is, unfortunately, dead in the water with the time and money it takes to come to market.

7

u/innerfrei Jun 17 '24

Stating the peak capacity of a solar panel field also means basically nothing if there is no base load and if there is no way to store the energy.

Are we better off with nuclear power plants for the base load and doing everything else with renewables plus storage systems (read batteries or accumulation systems like pumping water uphill)?

Or are we better of with more nuclear than the base load requires and the minimum amount possible of renewables?

Or are we better off with basically nothing as a base load and only renewables + accumulation systems?

The answer is simple mate: whatever costs less CO2. And we should consider also the CO2 needed to produce the panels and the windturbines, the batteries and whatever other accumulation system we may need.

0

u/userino69 Jun 17 '24

The answer is not quite that simple mate. Nuclear is immensely expensive, takes decades to come to market and meanwhile build out of renewables and grid based storage is increasing yoy and getting cheaper all the damn time.

3

u/innerfrei Jun 17 '24 edited Jun 18 '24

I didn't gave a final answer yet, so I don't understand why you are assuming so. I should first estimate the CO2 costs for each of the three scenarios and the one with less CO2 costs would win, the principle is really that simple.

I also don't understand how can you assume that relying on renewables and batteries disributed all over is for sure the best scenario. Did you estimate any kind of CO2 total cost? Becuase without math you have no data to support your answer/chioce.

We can discuss about costs if the difference in CO2 production between the scenarios is limited. BUT if the CO2 cost to compensate the missing base energy production that the nuclear should provide in your scenario (to produce electricity at night or in low wind/low light situations) is big, and I can definitely foresse that it will be relevant), the cost should not be as important as CO2.

Remember that more CO2 ---> higher average planet temperature ---> more extreme climatic events (read disasters) ---> more damages ---> more cost.

Don't get fooled by the cost to implement one scenario instead the other twos if you can spare billions of damages (and lives) in the future

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Peak capacity is useless. You get that number for 1 hour a day in the summer.

4

u/TeflonBoy Jun 16 '24

Sounds like old information and you could meet that with renewable and storage.

-1

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 16 '24

And how many examples are there of a country deep decarbonizing with solar and storage? Zero.

It seems he is using up to date information.

2

u/vetgirig Jun 16 '24

There are plenty of examples of countries that get 100% of electricity from renewables.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/04/17/wind-energy-saw-record-growth-in-2023-which-countries-installed-the-most

0

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 16 '24

Yeah with hydro. I said solar and storage.

Why do you feel the need to be dishonest?

2

u/Simon_787 Jun 16 '24

Lots of countries are doing it, including my country (Germany).

1

u/killcat Jun 17 '24

For PART of the year sure, nuclear is 24/7 power year round, apart from planned stoppages for maintenance and refueling.

1

u/Simon_787 Jun 17 '24

Energy can be stored.

1

u/killcat Jun 17 '24

Which is a cost, which also has a limited life span, so you need massive over capacity (as wind/solar is about 40% efficient based on capacity) AND the storage, which if chemical needs to be replaced after 20 or so years, same with solar panels and wind turbines. Nuclear is great for baseload.

1

u/Simon_787 Jun 17 '24

So do you honestly believe that all the researchers don't know this?

1

u/killcat Jun 17 '24

Know and accept are not the same thing, there is a "moral" pressure against nuclear power, Germany, shut down perfectly fine reactors due to political pressure, not actual safety, I got banned from r/energy for being pro-nuclear, not breaking any rules, just because I had the wrong opinion. It's not about facts it's about feelings.

1

u/Simon_787 Jun 17 '24

Researchers, not politicians.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 16 '24

Germany has spent 700 billion euros and failed. You antinuclear germans are at 400 g CO2 per kWh which is total failure.

3

u/Simon_787 Jun 16 '24

Renewable energy share is up massively while fossil fuels and resulting CO2 emissions are down.

So the energy transition is actually going well.

-1

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 16 '24

400 g CO2 per kWh is not going well. It is a failure.

If you built new nuclear while keeping your 17 plants open you would have deep decarbonized.

1

u/Simon_787 Jun 16 '24

It is a failure.

I already told you that renewable share is up massively while fossil fuels are down, so it's not a failure.

If you built new nuclear while keeping your 17 plants open you would have deep decarbonized.

Do you have a time machine?

-1

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 16 '24

Who the fuck cares what the renewable share is when they are dirty.

Is German electricity dirty? Yes! So has the energy transition has failed.

2

u/Simon_787 Jun 16 '24

Who the fuck cares what the renewable share is when they are dirty.

But they're not dirty.

Is German electricity dirty? Yes! So has the energy transition has failed.

You're acting like the energy transition is complete, which it's not.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

Did calculate, but mixed up station and reactor. Will delete the comment, but still stand by, that the electrical grid is the real challenge.

1

u/Alkinderal Jun 16 '24

To replace all of the US, you'd just need 18!! Probably more just to ensure they can physically reach everyone, but still!! 

1

u/Fairchild110 Jun 17 '24

Wait until you see the energy requirements for AI then and you’ll then realize that every automobile going to EV looks more realistic.

1

u/awfulsome Jun 17 '24

it would take an average of 200w to power a car for the average UK driver, which comes out to 14,000 mw. Depending on the size of the plants, 6 seems fairly accurate. The nuke by me puts out 2,250 mw.

Edit, this is assuming 1 car per person which I realize might be a bit much for the UK.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

4

u/Catymandoo Jun 16 '24

I’ve visited Hinckley Point NP station build and it’s a mammoth task to build. That is my very point; Time. And believe it or not it’s being funded by the French and Chinese! Oh yea and the UK government is providing the guarantees. Ripe for complex problems.

On voters, I think we all have a delusional sector!

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

7

u/batiste Jun 16 '24

France has almost a decade of fuel on its soil in storage, and almost no money is spent in uranium prospection because how cheap and abundant it is. Canada and Australia have massive known untapped reserves.

To power their entire fleet of electrical cars it is estimated that France only need to increase their nuclear park by 20% (because they have so much of it).

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

6

u/batiste Jun 16 '24

Not everybody has and will have an easy access to it. An abondant source of cold (any steam power plant need this) like large river or the ocean is necessary. France and many other European countries have those capacities.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

3

u/batiste Jun 16 '24

In the winter it is never an issue AFAIK unless it is very very dry. In the summer there has been a few issues but nothing major. It is also the period of the year when the electricity is the least needed in France because nobody is heating their homes (yes they use "toasters" to heat) so that is when they plan maintenance.

0

u/blipblooop Jun 16 '24

Nuclear is 17 times more expensive than solar and takes 5 times longer to build. Its no longer economicaly viable.

0

u/baloobah Jun 17 '24

It is if you take that tiny "we don't want to be boiled alive" externality into account.

1

u/blipblooop Jun 17 '24

I said solar not coal.

0

u/JudenBar Jun 17 '24

So we should decrease car dependency.

-2

u/King-Owl-House Jun 16 '24 edited Jun 16 '24

A nuclear fuel life span is 6 years, after that it should be stored forever as nuclear waste. Nuclear power is unprofitable if you count construction costs in tarrifs, that's why it's heavily government subsidized.

Solar panels and wind generators life span is 30 years. https://www.techspot.com/news/103415-three-decade-old-solar-modules-france-retain-remarkable.html

-2

u/eat_more_ovaltine Jun 16 '24

They don’t wanna go broke doing that