Submitted by NickDanger3di t3_xukl1z in Futurology
philipp2310 t1_iqwthfq wrote
Reply to comment by Seidans in Solar power world record broken with ‘miracle material’ by NickDanger3di
Wrong. Nuclear is about to become the most expensive. Solar is the cheapest. You got basically everything just the wrong way around. source
Seidans t1_iqz7l5j wrote
i don't think you understand my point, solar is cheaper as other energy source allow it to be cheaper and gouvernment fund
when petrole will become more and more scarse it's price will get more and more expensive, an energy source such as solar that need a lot of material per kwh compared to more concentrated source of energy will become too expensive for country that don't have any mine as we import everything
european for exemple won't be able to maintain their energy policy for decade, solar and wind are just temporary, concentrated source of electricity will become far more attractive in a world that suffer from scarcity, that make nuclear the most interesting choice and you better pray we research gen4 fission or better fusion before it happen
people seem to focus too much on climat that they forget fossile energy made our civilisation, soon they will dissapear and the world isn't prepared
philipp2310 t1_iqzhtjx wrote
Subsidies are not included in that statistics. Solar is cheap by its own. And luckily we start to return to electricity based transportation, so no society collapse is to be expected „soon“ (at least caused by petrol scarcity)
Nuclear is getting more and more expensive as we currently mine only the high concentration ores. With higher demand we would need to tap into low concentration or deeper mines. Next gen reactors could help with that. So will next gen solar panels what this thread is about.
But yes, it is the first time I hear solar and wind being called an intermittent energy source. Bold statement considering it is the cheapest form of electricity, renewable and dezentral. With a dezentral energy source being more valuable in the future as the energy hasn’t to be transported through the whole country but can be produced where it is needed
Seidans t1_ir04s6p wrote
> But yes, it is the first time I hear solar and wind being called an intermittent energy source. Bold statement considering it is the cheapest form of electricity, renewable and dezentral. With a dezentral energy source being more valuable in the future as the energy hasn’t to be transported through the whole country but can be produced where it is needed
then you lack information about how renewable energy work in an energy grid, there a reason germany still use gas or coal and it's not because they love gas or coal but because renewable is intermittent and unnable to provide electricty h24 7d7 unlike fossile or nuke, this is also why gas company give money to anti-nuclear like greenpeace or politic directly as it secure their business
also solar is inneficient and there no reason technology will change that as there a physic limitation how much power they can generate, not because of it's material but the atmosphere itself, good luck changing that, this make solar less efficient than other energy source, sure right now you can gain some % with technology but once you hit the physic limitation it's over (unless you build a solar powerplant in space but it's EXTREAMLY expensive and certainly not avaiable for all humanity)
to replace petrole we either need a massive supply of hydrogen, something difficult as to produce hydrogen you need to spend 2x the energy it will provide, for 100MW of hydrogen you need 200MW from any source (fossile, nuke, renewable) or electric generator directly but still you need to increase the electricity generation of your continent just to replace petrole, this mean far more solar/wind farm this mean far more material as those ressource use an absurd amont of ressource (and rare metal on top of that) you get why it's a bad idea as ressource scarcity will become far worse in the coming year no?
philipp2310 t1_ir059hs wrote
Well.. no.. you don’t know why decisions where made regarding gas as it seams. Gas is the intermittent energy source until renewables are fully built. AND it is there to take peak loads. Same is required for nuclear as well - you can’t just tune nuclear down and up on a hourly basis to match the demand. You still need something for the peaks. So nuclear is intermittent as well in your logic?
Seidans t1_ir06vko wrote
nuclear can run h24 7d7 it's not the case for renewable but yes nuclear use a very small source of other energy to stabilize the demand on the grid, i'm french, historicaly we used hydroelectric for that purpoise but gas do it well as it's extreamly fast to activate
only renewable are intermittent as a lack of wind or a couple day of rain/clouds will ruin it, that's why country with lot of renewable have far more fossile powerplant installed to produce electricity when their renewable isn't available (once again, germany)
philipp2310 t1_ir0kzm6 wrote
nuclear HAS TO run 24/7.
You have to assume a worst case fluctuation per day. Quick search shows 85 to 120 MW in summer during the day(src - in thousands MW for DC in US, just for simplicity I'll leave out the thousands as only the comparison between the values matters). That means almost 50% of the "base load" need to be added during the evening hours (18:00 peak), which we actually still see significant solar production during that time. And in spring your base load is only ~61MW - you won't ever built nuclear for anything above 70MW in that case as it would mean you got significant nuclear reactor capacity "idling" and still causing the same cost as when it was running. There you get a gap of about 50MW. What is your plan for this? 50MW is 10 times the total german gas production of yesterday (peak 71t MW with gas 4.6t MW and 22t MW solar - including 18t MW overproduction for export. But as you can see in my source even in automn, the peak production of solar matches the time of peak load)
I'm not saying solar can solve all issues and is the sole solution, but at least an "idling" solar panel won't cause economic loss, and thus industries will still invest into it. Nobody wants to invest in idle nuclear plants, especially when solar is the cheaper way.
While solar needs a solution for energy storage, nuclear has its own book of issues, dangers and problems. A combination of all, is the only thing for the future. And no, solar and wind won't disappear. And when they don't disappear, they are not an intermittent solution. Nuclear will disappear when fusion is viable(some day in forever 25 years), as there is no reason to run fission when you got the other highly centralized energy production which is fusion. So, nuclear fission is the intermittent one here, right?
On top of that, my house has a planned independence from the grid of over 80% without any extra space required, just the roof (don't have actual numbers yet). Can't have that with nuclear either.
Seidans t1_ir1qtqi wrote
i don't think you understand what intermittent mean based on how you use this word and try to mix it with nuclear, fission have always been a temporary solution just like gen3 were supposed to be temporary, scientist knew that one day uranium will deplete that's why gen4 are researched and that's why fusion are researched the holy grail of energy generation, until we find better (if possible) and that's not what intermittent mean
as for nuclear reducing it's power depending the energy grid demand, it's "normal" as nuclear just like fossile coal and gas isn't tied to wind or solar to work, you tell them to produce the amont of power you need and that's it
i'll add that the finish EPR that took 17year to build and 11billion will take 4-5year to pay itself, it's supposed to live for 60 to 80years, do you really think maintenance cost matter? obviously not, also the "danger" you mention is only created by fear of unknow and nothing else just like fukushima show, the nuclear incident didn't cause any death or sickness from radiation and like the UNSCEAR rapport show the evacuation was exagerated and poorly executed, it created fear and panic that caused far more death than the incident itself (mostly elder people)
in short if a nuclear incident happen the most reasonable thing to do is...nothing, maybe evacuate the very close area around the powerplant but that's it, the "danger" only exist for the press and politic to exploit but in reality it don't exist anymore with our modern reactor
philipp2310 t1_ir1xm14 wrote
Ok, maybe it is lost in translation and interim energy would have been better. Great for you, the first time your "you don't understand" argument, you start every post with was right. And you finally got the intellectual high ground you want to put yourself on. And yet you failed to EXPLAIN what the error was and explained interim and not intermittent. Good job. Not.
The fact that you say "you tell them to produce the amount of power you need an that's it" shows me, you don't understand how nuclear reactors work, neither did you address the wasted money for idle nuclear reactors. Just because something is possible, it still might not be profitable.
And you keep telling nuclear would pay for itself - well, look back at the graph. Solar pays twice for itself in the same time and that while only running half a day. Good job, go to your boss and tell him you need only half your salary from now on, you will still make profit from your work! Just because something is profitable in the long run, it might not be the most profitable solution.
No Danger? You say active fighting in europe's biggest nuclear reactor isn't a matter of danger? A fight in a random forest would be just the same? Chernobyl costed about $700 billion in damages - not including Russian troops digging trenches in the radioactive soil as that study is from 2016.
Yes, the panic was oversold in most cases. No, you shouldn't do nothing. Otherwise seat belts above 100 miles an hour could be abandoned as well. Won't make a big difference anyways? Chernobyl exposed 10 million people to radiation, reaching as far as south Germany, where you still are not supposed to eat wild mushrooms in some regions. Lucky for you, that you are in a region that wasn't affected. Fukushima was lucky with its wind directions for example.
​
And "it don't exist anymore with our modern reactor" - you ever heard of that unsinkable ship named Titanic? Yeah, couldn't sink, because it was modern. ...
​
And to bring another topic into the game: France has 1.700.000 cubic meters of nuclear waste. How much of this is in its final storage place? Afaik Bure is not yet active. Did you factor into your calculation of profitability the decade long search for a final storage solution? Did you factor in the cost to transport that 1.700.000 cubic meters radioactive waste? Just because it was not funded by the company that is building that reactor, it still has to be payed by the people using the energy. Be it in taxes or fees.
If it was so profitable, you wouldn't need that massive lobbying you can observe in France. Why the need for state control in EDF? Why the need for 2.1bn€ subsidies for EDF? Why are you arguing for something and bashing solar in a solar based threat when nuclear was so superior and self selling?
Seidans t1_ir23ta6 wrote
nuclear waste cost are already included in the electricity cost of any european country, the most iradiated waste part isn't even the size of a football field and that's for more than 50year of exploitation, yes bure isn't ready yet as "pro-environment" made the project take more time it would (bure wasn't the first choice)
you can't compare chernobyl and our current reactor as they are completly different, chernobyl could and have exploded, it's impossible now, physicaly impossible, using the titanic or driving at 100 km/h without belt as an argument won't change that fact
yes solar are profitable now, less when you include energy storage but still, they are profitable especially with an energy crisis,but it wasn't my concern, i said that relying on a energy source that use an absurd amont of material per kw/h was a mistake when your country don't own any mine that produce those material especially when the entire world will enter a scarcity era and country that export those material will no longer export them for their benefit
the same way europe need to develop the electric vehicle and public transport as we don't have a single drop of oil, and so we need to multiply our electricity generation by 2 at least, relying on gas and coal was a mistake, everyone see that with ukrain/russia war, now what will happen if china and taiwan start a war? china have the majority lf all rare earth metal in the world including lithium, i don't mind using renewable now that's profitable but it should only be temporary and nuclear should be favored as it provide far more independance in that regard
EDF is state owned and nuclear as a whole depend of a state as nuclear isn't capitalistic unlike other source of electricity including renewable, it's easy to build a couple of solar and wind farm as it's far cheaper and faster, it's morz difficult to invest in a project that require 10billion and take 10years, will facebook still exist in 10years? amazon? who know, France existed for thousand of years and will continue long after my death, that's why nuclear is state owned, and i don't even talk about national security, you can build bomb with them, nuclear bomb, dirty bomb even poison
i guess we will stop here as it become silly
philipp2310 t1_ir29g7p wrote
>nuclear waste cost are already included in the electricity cost of any european country
that's why you land at double the cost for nuclear - invalidating all your arguments against solar.
​
>chernobyl could and have exploded, it's impossible now
Until it isn't impossible - unsinkable, unexplodeable.. same story.
​
And then you argue FOR electric cars as "society will collapse and we can't have oil anymore". Cars will for ever need energy storage. Light weight. As if there are the resources for that in Europe. Like the rare earth you mentioned from china we need for solar?
In what world is building cars with batteries more resource independent than building solar panels?
​
>we don't have a single drop of oil
Don't we? I'm pretty sure there are about 26 oil rigs around the north sea.
​
>i don't even talk about national security, you can build bomb with them, nuclear bomb, dirty bomb even poison
You don't say. Almost as if having nuclear near population could be used by terrorists or terrorist states?
​
And one last time I'll cite the reason why EDF is state owned for you:
>The government hopes nationalising the debt-laden company will help secure energy supplies in the country after the war in Ukraine left countries hunting for new sources of power to replace Russian imports.
​
And then you talk about panic and media with nuclear - but your "the oil society will crumble" view is completely sane and not panic driven? Almost as if there was some lobby behind that view as well.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments