I don’t have a problem with nuclear energy other than that it is expensive relative to other technologies such as solar or wind. Maybe some of the reason it is so expensive is precisely because of the FUD the media spreads on the topic. I think new technologies that gain widespread use are often the ones that are most profitable so in that sense solar beats out nuclear.
media feeds on and sells irrational fear on the topic
It is expensive relative to solar and wind. I agree!
You’ll notice, I hope, that in another comment in this thread I concluded that we need lots and lots of solar and wind. I’m ALL in on renewables; they’re great!!
But the (dirty) secret of renewables is that it’s got external cost associated with it. I can build a gas plant, or a nuclear plant, and I broadly get the advertised generation capacity out of it. I can steer this up or down (also with nuclear; one of many misunderstandings people hold on nuclear is that it’s not steerable)
When I build a wind turbine park, I can also in aggregate get an advertised rating out of it - in a windy area I multiply the capacity all the turbines by 45%-ish and that’s what I’ll get out of these turbines in a year. It’s remarkably precise.
The challenge is that a heat-based plant is steerable up and down (between 0 and its capacity), in the moment, on demand. Renewables are only steerable down (between 0 and whatever the wind wants to do right now).
And then many say “well we just need to build a LOT of turbines (and/or solar) and then we will always have enough”. Or they say “well, we will need some adjustable, backup capacity”.
And that’s valid - but…
We have a lot of wind today - enough that we can feel confident about estimating what “a lot of wind capacity would do”. And we would still have complete wind/sun-less days with zero output, even if we build massive over-capacity.
Ok, some say, then let’s invest in distribution - so I can source masses of renewable power from even further away. Yup, although all simulations show even with insane investments in distribution interconnectors, you end up with days of no power from anywhere AND you’ve now to spend on inter-connectors.
Let’s store it then! Well, sure, but now you’ve got to build an absolutely insane amount of batteries (heavy metal strip mining and very expensive, and probably more than we can actually conceive to make) or you’ve got to make very expensive pumped storage (we don’t have enough areas where pumped storage can be located).
If you want 50Hz (or whatever your local equivalent is) ALL THE TIME, there are external costs to renewables: Massive investment in distribution, massive investment in energy storage, massive over-building capacity etc.
So when you build renewable capacity, you are adding these external costs elsewhere. That’s why many grid-planners advocate for a different model: Guaranteed capacity.
Ie.: “I guarantee between 0 and 1000 GW, on demand; if I can’t meet the requested requirement, I pay a fine based on the size of the miss”. If you forced renewable capacity towards “guaranteed capacity”, these investments would have to be made in association with the build of the renewable capacity, either by leaker gas plants, storage, distribution networks etc.
So what’s happening right now is these externalised costs to renewable capacity are being absorbed elsewhere. When you add the cost of guaranteeing the capacity, nuclear no longer looks expensive.
Or you accept that hospitals will be burning diesel fuel and the rest of our world shuts down at random times. Travel to Johannesburg if you want a sense of what the world feels like when the power goes out in an entire neighbourhood to load-shed.
So I’m not arguing against renewables - if they could get us all the way there, at the sticker price, I’d not make an argument for nuclear.
But I do not believe you can - and as originally discussed, this is based on reading an unseasonable amount of papers and literature about grid planning, renewables and nuclear energy.
So for me, it comes down to: What do you want to do to guarantee that frequency is maintained 24/7? Gas peaker plants? Nuclear? Storage?
None of the options to go from “we have power 90% of the time” to “we have power 100% of the time” are that enticing. Nuclear power is the least bad. If 20-25% of our capacity came from nuclear, the price of guaranteeing 100% frequency-hold drops dramatically. Any other alternative seems worse.
I don’t have a problem with nuclear energy other than that it is expensive relative to other technologies such as solar or wind. Maybe some of the reason it is so expensive is precisely because of the FUD the media spreads on the topic. I think new technologies that gain widespread use are often the ones that are most profitable so in that sense solar beats out nuclear.
Fixed it for you. 😀
It is expensive relative to solar and wind. I agree!
You’ll notice, I hope, that in another comment in this thread I concluded that we need lots and lots of solar and wind. I’m ALL in on renewables; they’re great!!
But the (dirty) secret of renewables is that it’s got external cost associated with it. I can build a gas plant, or a nuclear plant, and I broadly get the advertised generation capacity out of it. I can steer this up or down (also with nuclear; one of many misunderstandings people hold on nuclear is that it’s not steerable)
When I build a wind turbine park, I can also in aggregate get an advertised rating out of it - in a windy area I multiply the capacity all the turbines by 45%-ish and that’s what I’ll get out of these turbines in a year. It’s remarkably precise.
The challenge is that a heat-based plant is steerable up and down (between 0 and its capacity), in the moment, on demand. Renewables are only steerable down (between 0 and whatever the wind wants to do right now).
And then many say “well we just need to build a LOT of turbines (and/or solar) and then we will always have enough”. Or they say “well, we will need some adjustable, backup capacity”.
And that’s valid - but… We have a lot of wind today - enough that we can feel confident about estimating what “a lot of wind capacity would do”. And we would still have complete wind/sun-less days with zero output, even if we build massive over-capacity.
Ok, some say, then let’s invest in distribution - so I can source masses of renewable power from even further away. Yup, although all simulations show even with insane investments in distribution interconnectors, you end up with days of no power from anywhere AND you’ve now to spend on inter-connectors.
Let’s store it then! Well, sure, but now you’ve got to build an absolutely insane amount of batteries (heavy metal strip mining and very expensive, and probably more than we can actually conceive to make) or you’ve got to make very expensive pumped storage (we don’t have enough areas where pumped storage can be located).
If you want 50Hz (or whatever your local equivalent is) ALL THE TIME, there are external costs to renewables: Massive investment in distribution, massive investment in energy storage, massive over-building capacity etc.
So when you build renewable capacity, you are adding these external costs elsewhere. That’s why many grid-planners advocate for a different model: Guaranteed capacity.
Ie.: “I guarantee between 0 and 1000 GW, on demand; if I can’t meet the requested requirement, I pay a fine based on the size of the miss”. If you forced renewable capacity towards “guaranteed capacity”, these investments would have to be made in association with the build of the renewable capacity, either by leaker gas plants, storage, distribution networks etc.
So what’s happening right now is these externalised costs to renewable capacity are being absorbed elsewhere. When you add the cost of guaranteeing the capacity, nuclear no longer looks expensive.
Or you accept that hospitals will be burning diesel fuel and the rest of our world shuts down at random times. Travel to Johannesburg if you want a sense of what the world feels like when the power goes out in an entire neighbourhood to load-shed.
So I’m not arguing against renewables - if they could get us all the way there, at the sticker price, I’d not make an argument for nuclear.
But I do not believe you can - and as originally discussed, this is based on reading an unseasonable amount of papers and literature about grid planning, renewables and nuclear energy.
So for me, it comes down to: What do you want to do to guarantee that frequency is maintained 24/7? Gas peaker plants? Nuclear? Storage?
None of the options to go from “we have power 90% of the time” to “we have power 100% of the time” are that enticing. Nuclear power is the least bad. If 20-25% of our capacity came from nuclear, the price of guaranteeing 100% frequency-hold drops dramatically. Any other alternative seems worse.