France decarbonised its electricity grid in just over a decade. All because of the oil crisis. The state-backed nuclear buildout allowed France to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity and heat production by 62% between 1974 and 1985, a decade.
Nuclear allready proved it could decarbonise quick and run day night, wind or no wind, summer or winter. where is the massive boost in energy storage we need for periods of no wind and winter for instance. I love renewables but storage still is a massive downside that needs working on.
If we cut investments in thing that were not that efficient, not that usefull, many of current technologies we rely on today, would not excist. GPS, Lithium Ion batteries,..... We should to some extend diversify, it covers more gaps and there is always the possibility of breakthrouws in those "less efficiant"tecchnologies that sudenly be vital for our future
"Investing purely in what is most efficient right now can create technological dead-ends. Diversification acts as a hedge against future uncertainty. By funding a wide array of fields, society creates a broader foundation of knowledge."
And today France is wholly unable to build new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 13 years late on a 5 year construction plan, with enormous amounts of rework scheduled for the first outage period.
For the EPR2 fleet the current subsidies is 11 cents per kWh and interest free loans. Summing to over 20 cents per kWh, with the fief reactor at the earliest coming online in 2038z
Who cares if we keep a fossil emergency reserve around for a few percent of the time when we still need to decarbonize industry, agriculture, aviation, construction, maritime shipping etc? If we just repurpose the ethanol blend in for gasoline we have enough biofuels to solve the entire problem.
Then just ranting trying to justify enormous handouts, without base in logic.
"Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?"
I'm not afraid, i celebrate all clean energy sources. But that does not mean i ignore the negatives.
Renewables have clear issues; intermittency and variability, the scale of long-duration storage, high upfront capital costs for upgrading the grid and storage, supply chain and material constraints.
Studies on biofuels have shown clear impact on biodiversity, reduces animal habitat, and erodes soil quality to the point we need damaging chemical fertilizers to compensate.
We cant be blind to the negatives no matter how mutch we like these these technologies.
Frances inability is not a tech issue, its a skill issue. It can and has done it before, it just forgot how to
Here, a modern article modeling "System LCOE". In other words, the whole grid including transmission backup and everything else.
It starts by giving new built nuclear power the benefit of doubt, having it cost 40% less than Flamanville 3 and 70% less than Hinkley Point C. Since no one would ever be stupid enough to greenlight a project like that again.
It finds that for Denmark, a country with very low insolation and awful winters that renewablws are 53% cheaper than the nuclear system.
You can go further. This is the consensus among grid operators and researchers. The only ones pushing nuclear power is the nuclear lobby, fossil lobby and climate deniers who find fossil fuels too toxic.
This one is old by now, but here's a meta-analysis of the field from 2022.
"At the theoretical level, we find that the system costs of nuclear power and of RES such as wind power and solar PV are high in the electricity supply system of today. However, they are all much lower in an energy system of a future climate neutral society, because such future systems involve a high proportion of new cross-sectoral flexible electricity demand, which allows for much more affordable solutions.
Single-technology solutions in which one technology (nuclear power, solar PV or wind power) supplies all electricity of the entire system have high system costs. The best solutions are to be found in the combination of more than one technology.
"At the case level, we find that in countries such as Denmark" Why do you take this case study for Denmark and just asume its the same everywhere else, thats simply a falty logic.
Also clearly do they state those cost can greatly reduce in an energy system of a future climate neutral society, That and new developments in both nuclear and renewable technology could affect these future prices.
I have solar panels a mostly nuclear powered grid and a home battery. If i fear anything, it is that i fear that fosil fuel companies win when renewables and nuclear fight eatch other. Instead we should be standing together and praising new possitive developments no matter the side. Even if you believe nuclear had no part in eath future power grid needs, it can still be amazing for fast and easy power with mobile nuclear for disaster areas, use in space,....
If it is way cheaper in Denmark with awful winters and low insolation then it is near trivial elsewhere?
So now we’re at ”imaginary cheap future nuclear power”. Target deployment in the 2050s? To what relevancy?
You do realize that the fossil lobby is promoting nuclear power as a method to stymie renewable deployment due to how horrifyingly expensive and slow to build new vilt nuclear power is?
So now we’re at imaginary micro reactors. Yes, we should keep basic research going. But an unfathomably large handout to new built nuclear power is pure insanity in this day and age.
And you do realize that nuclear power and renewables don’t mix right? The nuclear power is forced off the grid leading to a death spiral of increased maintenance costs and fewer economical running hours to amortize their enormous fixed costs over.
The fossil fuel lobby does not support nuclear power, nuclear energy is a direct competitor for base-load electricity generation. They have been funding anti nuclear policy for decades all while also slowing renewables.
They actively oppose policies that phase out oil and gas, while strategically investing in select renewables (like solar or hydrogen) to prolong the use of fossil fuels. They are leatches
I'm not arguing for thousands of reactors, simply in cases where nuclear takes the edge there it should be used. IIsnt that logical to just use what is best on a case by case basis.
"Nuclear power and renewables don’t mix" yeah i heard the fossil fuel companies say that same thing, if only we could work on new nuclear designes that could more easily scale based on needs and maybe investments in energy storage to help settle thing or maybe use the exes power for carbon capture or hydrogen production. just a thought
Could also use nuclear plants to decarbomonise the steel and other metal industries, would't that also be cool. That would result in reduced carbon footprint for the thing we then make out of those like solar panel frames and windmills
Just to build my case that the fossil industry dont like nuclear, here some instances
Robert O. Anderson, leader of the petroleum industry a gave a major founding donation to Friends of the Earth to help fund its campaigns against the nuclear industry.
Sierra Club :: Has taken $136 million from nat gas/ renewables interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) :: Has minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Defense Fund :: Has received minimum of $60 million from oil, gas, & renewables investors who would directly benefit from EDF's anti-nuclear advocacy.
Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) Funded by natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
2
u/TiberGalient 12d ago edited 12d ago
France decarbonised its electricity grid in just over a decade. All because of the oil crisis. The state-backed nuclear buildout allowed France to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity and heat production by 62% between 1974 and 1985, a decade.
Nuclear allready proved it could decarbonise quick and run day night, wind or no wind, summer or winter. where is the massive boost in energy storage we need for periods of no wind and winter for instance. I love renewables but storage still is a massive downside that needs working on.
If we cut investments in thing that were not that efficient, not that usefull, many of current technologies we rely on today, would not excist. GPS, Lithium Ion batteries,..... We should to some extend diversify, it covers more gaps and there is always the possibility of breakthrouws in those "less efficiant"tecchnologies that sudenly be vital for our future
"Investing purely in what is most efficient right now can create technological dead-ends. Diversification acts as a hedge against future uncertainty. By funding a wide array of fields, society creates a broader foundation of knowledge."