"New nuclear capacity of 3.3 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 was outweighed by lost capacity of 4.6 GW. Over the past 20 years, there has been modest growth (12.6%, 44 GW) in global nuclear power capacity if reactors currently in long-term outage are included. However, including those reactors ... in the count of ‘operable’ or ‘operational’ or ‘operating’ reactors is, as former WNA executive Steve Kidd states, 'misleading' and 'clearly ridiculous'."
- #JimGreen, 2018
https://energypost.eu/nuclear-power-in-crisis-welcome-to-the-era-of-nuclear-decommissioning/
"Renewables (24.5% of global generation) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (<10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly. The International Energy Agency predicts renewable energy capacity growth of 43% (920 GW) from 2017 to 2022. Overall, the share of renewables in power generation will reach 30% in 2022 according to the IEA. By then, nuclear’s share will be around 10% and renewables will be out-generating nuclear by a factor of three."
"Lobbyists engaged each other in heated arguments over possible solutions to nuclear power’s crisis ‒ in a nutshell, some favour industry consolidation while others think innovation is essential, all of them think that taxpayer subsidies need to be massively increased, and none of them are interested in the tedious work of building public support by strengthening nuclear safety and regulatory standards, strengthening the safeguards system, etc."
"One indication of the industry’s desperation has been the recent willingness of industry bodies (such as the US Nuclear Energy Institute) and supporters (such as former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz) to openly acknowledge the connections between nuclear power and weapons, and using those connections as an argument for increased taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power and the broader ‘civil’ nuclear fuel cycle."
Chilling.
Also, if you're thinking fast breeder reactors will keep the nuclear power ship afloat:
"The performance of the Superphénix reactor was as dismal as Monju. Superphénix was meant to be the world’s first commercial fast reactor but in the 13 years of its miserable existence it rarely operated ‒ its ‘Energy Unavailability Factor’ was 90.8% according to the IAEA. Note that the fast reactor lobbyists complain about the intermittency of wind and solar!"
https://energypost.eu/slow-death-fast-reactors/
In summary, renewables come with a range of pros and cons, but they are the only energy option available for a sustainable future.
Yes, together with fossil gas plants to make electricity while renewables don't work.
@kravietz
* Both fossil and nuclear plants require an efficient supply chain of mined fuels, from reasonably uncommon, concentrated sources. Renewables can use local sources and generate efficiently at smaller scales, closer to the point of use, reducing losses from moving electricity from to generator to user.
* during pandemic response lockdowns, the morning and evening energy use spikes mostly disappeared, matching demand much more closely to the currently available renewable generation.
@kravietz
* one electric train, carrying 500 people from a chain of suburbs to an urban centre during commuter hours, uses a fraction of the energy of 100 car journies. That's assuming uncomfortably full car pools, not the single occupant commutes most car drivers do. Even if you supply all passengers with free device charging, internet, and air conditioning (as newer trains do in China), you're still using way less energy, to achieve a safer, more comfortable journey.
@kravietz If you really want to understand #RenewablesEnergy strategies, and the society-wide changes required to transition to a long-term sustainable energy system, I suggest digging into #AmoryLovins' work entitled #ReinventingFire
https://rmi.org/insight/reinventing-fire/
I know Amory Lovins writings and they are a textbook example of this mix of denial and wishful thinking I've described below.
> Renewables can use local sources
Sorry, again ignorance and wishful thinking. This is resources flow diagram for typical renewable energy technologies. Tell me more about "local sources".
@kravietz It's self-evident that anyone can use:
* passive solar design (with climatically appropriate insulation) for heating their house
* thermal solar hot water heating, supplemented in the winter by a wetback, fueled by wood from sustainably managed forests nearby
* biogas from humanure, if their house/ community has a biodigesting sewage system.
All examples of local renewable energy sources.
And this is an actual advertisement from Australian Mining company presenting themselves (in this case honestly) as key supplier for RE industry. Tell me more about "fossil and nuclear plants require an efficient supply chain of mined fuels" that RE does not.
@kravietz you are getting confused between manufacturing inputs and fuels. Solar and wind only have the first one.
> Offshore wind is pretty constant
Yes, which gives it 40% annual efficiency at best.
Which means a 400 MW off-shore wind farm at best location will on average produce 40% of the energy it would produce if it worked at 400 MW all the time.
Which means to replace one 400 MW non-intermittent plant (coal, gas, nuclear) you need to build 2.5x larger off-shore wind farm.
@kravietz
> to replace one 400 MW non-intermittent plant (coal, gas, nuclear) you need to build 2.5x larger off-shore wind farm.
... and? Given the resource costs of building, maintaining and decommissioning each, I expect the wind option is already going to use less resources for the same energy. Once you add the full resource costs of mining and transporting fossil fuels (including uranium) and dealing with waste, the nuclear option is many times more resource intensive.
That's the problem, you suspect, I checked.
This is precisely why you have EROEI indicator to compare energy return to energy invested in total life-cycle, including manufacture, operations and decomission.
I'll leave you checking the actual returns for various energy sources as an exercise.
Second key indicator is life-cycle carbon emissions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
The key problem with renewables is very low power density. Uranium has the largest power density of all power sources, which means you will *always* need to spend least energy and carbon on manufacturing operations, because everything is smaller. And not like 2x smaller, but thousands time smaller.
> Offshore wind is pretty constant
And I'm not sure if you fully comprehend the scale of wind farms required to replace any non-intermittent plants.
This picture gives you and idea about the amount of wind turbines you need for UK. It's based on old data, but using the latest turbines does change only as much as the "belt" would be thinner by around 30%.
@kravietz you're not comparing apples with apples. We're talking about the amount of wind needed to provide baseline for the UK electricity grid - in combination with other sources (tidal makes a lot of sense for islands). This image is about trying to replace all UK energy use with wind, which is obviously not going to work.
> Baseline can be provided by geothermal, hydro (both lakes and micro), or tidal
Sorry, but you doing what all RE proponents are doing and I find it quite arrogant: you are just throwing some random prospective ideas without really doing any maths.
No, you cannot get any reasonable amount of energy if you're not in Iceland. In most of Europe you'll drill 1 km down and get lukewarm water which is useless. No, you cannot build more hydro dams anywhere in Europe.
@kravietz I gave you a couple of examples, not an exaustive list. Yes, the appropriate baseline sources will vary from bioregion to bioregion depending on what resources they have. As an example, NZ can get its baseline from a combo of geothermal and hydro, and is in the process of decommissioning it's remaining fossil plants.
@kravietz
> you doing what all RE proponents are doing and I find it quite arrogant
This kind of ad hominem does little to strengthen your case. Let's stick to arguing the facts, eh?
Absolutely but please first check the facts before putting them on the table. Proposing baseline from geothermal means you didn't.
> Most high energy manufacturing is (or could be) done during the day
No, it cannot be because most of the industrial processes are long-term and continuous. You cannot just switch a huge installation on and off at will, if it requires 3 days to power up.
@kravietz to the degree that's true, that's because they're *designed* that way, to work with fossil-powered energy systems, not because they can only work that way.
So your "a few points to consider" are just a way to convince *yourself* that 100% RE is practically possible but in reality are a mix of wishful thinking and denial.
This is no different from climate deniers ("oh we can just use geoengineering when it becomes too hot") and has exactly the same effect as climate deniers.
This denial has consequences in both cases: thanks to this denial by Greens, Germany right now emits 5x more CO2 from energy sector than France.
@kravietz OK, so our hydra-thread on renewables vs. nuclear has gone off in a bunch of fascinating directions. I find the fediverse a shallow and frustrating platform for this style of debate. Would you be willing to pick it up elsewhere?
@kravietz
What we need is a tool that helps us keep track of the branching threads and how they relate to each other. Eg at times ones of us might think that the rebuttal to the points in Post X were already given in Post T, and we need to be able to just plug in Post T as a reply to Post X, while keeping the rest of the thread structure in place. If we can avoid the frustration that comes with having to repeat ourselves, we can keep the debate friendlier and get deeper into the nuts and bolts.
100% my thinking
I fully share your frustration, unfortunately people tend to hang out in places which are unsuitable for discussion - and places suitable are empty 😂 I dream of a platform that would allow a systematic discussion where you can break it down into subtopics, provide evidence and close "agreed" branches. There's Kialo that does that *to some extent* but last time I tried it had few people and far from the structure I was thinking of.
There's a thread I participated in here https://edgeryders.eu/t/should-the-decarbonized-economy-be-nuclear-powered/11634 and this is better than Mastodon but still completely unstructured.
@kravietz do you realize you are reducing renewable sources to the most intermittent ones (photovoltaic solar and onshore wind), as if there's no other kind? A few points to consider:
* Passive and thermal solar systems can use stored solar energy at night
* Offshore wind is pretty constant
* Baseline can be provided by geothermal, hydro (both lakes and micro), or tidal, depending on the geography of energy users
* Most high energy manufacturing is (or could be) done during the day.