"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 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.
> 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.
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.
@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.