illiarian (u/illiarian)

illiarian commented on The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany jeromeaparis.substack.com... · Posted by u/Enimesnas

bayesian_horse · 3 years ago

You're still lying about the alternatives to nuclear power. You are still underestimating the impact of a nuclear disaster. You are still underestimating the risk of a nuclear disaster. These things have always occurred more frequently than expected, and we haven't seen anyone intentionally blow up a nuclear facility yet. The possibility for someone to actually make that happen intentionally (as supposed to the also criminal but less intentional neglect in the case of Fukushima) makes the risk calculations around nuclear impossible.

illiarian · 3 years ago

You are spreading FUD and fearmongering about nuclear.

We've had 60 years of nuclear and thousands of reactors. Still waiting for those terrorists I guess.

> as supposed to the also criminal but less intentional neglect in the case of Fukushima

Which is also a load of bull, mostly. I wish all criminal neglect was on the same level as Fukushima, really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35711895

illiarian commented on The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany jeromeaparis.substack.com... · Posted by u/Enimesnas

_ph_ · 3 years ago

And if you have enough for peak demand (which France for a while mostly had), you run into the opposite problem of having too much power production when you don't need it. Nuclear reactors are not only slow to switch power output, but they cannot be run below a certain output level (like 40-50%) without shutting down entirely. On top of that, running nuclear reactors on average significantly below maximum output drives the cost up further.

illiarian · 3 years ago

> Nuclear reactors are not only slow to switch power output

This is not true

> On top of that, running nuclear reactors on average significantly below maximum output drives the cost up further.

It doesn't

illiarian commented on The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany jeromeaparis.substack.com... · Posted by u/Enimesnas

bayesian_horse · 3 years ago

That's not how it works. I don't know the actual numbers, but what if peak load is 50% higher than average load? You need quite a lot of battery storage to make that work, especially if the peak load lasts longer than a few minutes (it usually does).

And that's true even assuming instant capacity adaptation. It's just not efficient to keep nuclear power at a capacity lower than their peak capacity.

illiarian · 3 years ago

> I don't know the actual numbers, but what if peak load is 50% higher than average load

You'd know if you read the link I provided.

Nuclear plants in Germany had no issues scaling up and down between 400-600MW and 1200-1400MW per reactor per day.

Now, with renewables you do have this issue. Because due to their intermittent nature you're required to both overbuild them and provide enough grid-scale storage to last for hours.

> It's just not efficient to keep nuclear power at a capacity lower than their peak capacity.

For some politically-motivated definition of efficient. Additional costs to running nuclear plants in load following mode are immaterial.

illiarian commented on The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany jeromeaparis.substack.com... · Posted by u/Enimesnas

locallost · 3 years ago

Correct. France built its reactors after the oil crises of the early 70s to guarantee its energy independence. The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then.

illiarian · 3 years ago

> The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then.

They didn't fail.

illiarian commented on The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany jeromeaparis.substack.com... · Posted by u/Enimesnas

bayesian_horse · 3 years ago

Your arguments are fueled by a lack of understanding.

Ramping down renewables is lots faster and easier. The stability argument is just populistic bullshit. Plausible on the surface, not a concern in actual practice. You are acting like those who plan and build this renewable capacity never thought of that.

The goal with renewables is to reduce the total emissions. There are still plenty of years left in that process before you even need any storage to cover capacity fluctuation. Because even when covering SOME extra capacity with fossil fuels SOME of the times, total emissions are still getting reduced. Is it that some people just want to ignore that a coal plant that doesn't produce energy also doesn't produce emissions?

illiarian · 3 years ago

> Ramping down renewables is lots faster and easier.

And the source for this is? Because reality seems to disagree with you

> The stability argument is just populistic bullshit. Plausible on the surface, not a concern in actual practice

You're surprised that renewable energy is intermittent and you need to significantly overbuild them?

> You are acting like those who plan and build this renewable capacity never thought of that.

So many decisions in this space are made purely for political points, so you can see how yes, people who are building this rarely if ever talk abou this.

> The goal with renewables is to reduce the total emissions.

Note how if you don't shut down nuclear power plants you don't need to burn coal to make up for the difference.

illiarian commented on The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany jeromeaparis.substack.com... · Posted by u/Enimesnas

locallost · 3 years ago

Let's say this number is correct: Flamanville has cost a 1/10 of that and has produced 0 kWh, and won't produce any at least 20 years since the project began. Germany produces around 250 TWh worth of electricity per year from renewables, and has done so to an increasing extent in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10. Flamanville Unit 3, I haven't found the estimated production, but judging from the other two units existing it should be in the ballpark of 10TWh per year.

Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue. If we want to decarbonize quickly, I cannot imagine how it can make sense to invest a 1/10 for a 1/25 of the production, and then wait decades longer for it. If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure: even if finished it will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time during which it did not produce a single kWh and did not displace a single molecule of co2. Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route. It can't be the solution now.

illiarian · 3 years ago

> Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue.

It hasn't, and it's not a "well-documented issue". What's documented is decades of FUD, fear-mongering, underinvestment etc.

> If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure

Why not look at projects like Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant instead?

> will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time

Ho long will it take to overbuild renewables and all the required power storage for them?

E.g. right now, during the day, Germany's renewables are generating:

- wind: 20% of installed capacity

- solar: 34% of installed capacity

- pumped hydro storage: sucking up 8% of total power generation for recharging

> Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route.

Which route? E.g. France's carbon output from electricity generation is ~56g/kWh. Germany's is ~340g/kWh. Care to guess why?