105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
105 points (71.6% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6216 readers
8 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Of course you can. Because nuclear energy is NOT a solution. Especially not in the long run.
This is accurate, however we can’t sacrifice good enough for the perfect we don’t have yet. I get there is no solution that lasts longer than a temporary one, but environmentally, nuclear absolutely should be implemented.
OK. Are we on the same page, that we need to abolish fossil energy ASAP?
And: How much (in % of global energy production) should be covered by nuclear power in your opinion?
Yep. Fossil fuels need to disappear yesterday.
Your second question is way, way out of my league. All I can toss out there as a guess is enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand vs ebb and flow of natural systems like sun and wind, maybe plus a little for contingency.
Hats off to you for being so honest and admitting this.
OK, please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly, but you mean: "We should basically utilize natural systems energy (sun, wind, water, ...) completely and turn off and on nuclear plants "on demand" to cover the peaks/gaps in demand." Did I get that right?
Pretty much, yeah; but again, out of my league. I don’t think nuclear can be just “turned off”, but in the context of this discussion whatever the minimum output is to keep them operating, and then power up to cover whatever output is needed to cover low wind, overcast, night, etc.
I’ll offer this also - and again I have no real scientific knowledge to back it up, but possibly this could be sorted out with some digging - that I think batteries should also be used to help buffer power output swings, but I also think that the environmental impact of batteries and their manufacturing need to be balanced against the same for nuclear power. It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid vs a relative few nuclear plants.
OK, cool.
What you are describing is called "load following". Different power plants have different capabilities of doing this. E.g. coal plants (or other thermal plants) are pretty bad at this while e.g. gas turbines can be turned on/off very quickly to buffer out short peaks of fluctuations. Power plants get categorized into different groups: e.g. Base Load plants or Peak Load plants. Base load is basically the load that is "always need to be supplied" and everything else is modulated on top of that.
To do effective load following, you would NOT want base load plants.
To categorize power plants we need to look at 2 different things: the technical capability to do "load following" with a plant - and the economical viability of throttling the power output of a plant.
Nuclear power plants have extremely high investment costs and a greater proportion of fixed costs (e.g. for personnel) while having very low variable costs, as nuclear plants are not really "using up more/less fuel" during their operation. That means: The cost of nuclear power plants is pretty much constant over time - no matter if they are producing more or less power, but you only get an return on invest if you output power.
That is why nuclear power plants are normally used as base load power plants, as their economic viability goes pretty bad when you do (extensive) load following with them. However, they have at least some technical capabilities of being operated in a (slower) load following mode.
When we add in the fact, that there was probably not a single nuclear power plant, yet, that was economically viable without huge subsidies and the mere costs of keeping the radioactive waste products safe FOREVER are enormous, investors/plant owners don't really like the idea of "throttling" their plants as they will be loosing money.
That is why - if you have a great amount of base load power plants in your grid - you tend to turn off the generators that are easy to regulate but hard to calculate: Wind & Solar. That's why a high percentage of nuclear power in your energy mix will PREVENT the utilization of true renewable energy sources, making them a less viable investment.
This is one of the reasons why I asked about the percentage of "needed nuclear power" in the beginning. Different percentages of these plants will have different effects on the entire energy production system and it's trajectory.
So I am coming back to my original question. And there is not right or wrong answer, just a gut feeling: How much nuclear do we need to make this work? Our current energy mix (primary energy consumption) consists globally roughly of 75% fossil energy and 4% nuclear. So do you think we will need to replace the 75% fossils with nuclear by 1:1? Or maybe 1:2 and fill the rest with Wind/Solar? Or do we keep the current 4%? Really, it's about your gut feeling about what you think will be necessary. From that point on, we can then further explore the general viability and consequences of nuclear power in the grid.
The beauty of it is: You wouldn't really need to do this - but I'm getting ahead of myself. This a different rabbit hole that I don't think is needed to be explored right now.
But just a short pointers:
Well I think I just got jumped. You had a well prepared answer, however I'll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them, particularly the environmental issues inherent in battery production and recycling, and sorta handwaved in the general direction of alternative sources like pumped-up hydro. I'm a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that Science Will Save Us via some future solution or construction. The proverbial can keeps getting kicked down the road to do something about the issues immediately with the excuse that technology will jump in and save the day before it's too late. People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built to meet the professed goal. Ideas are great, but if we don't have it now it's technically already too late.
And that segues into nuclear. It is not a perfect solution. However it is a known tech, and an effective one. Nuclear waste is at the top of the issues I though of when I mentioned it, however that issue can be somewhat ameliorated if the US gets around to reprocessing the waste which is currently hindered by a non-proliferation treaty. We can argue costs and all that about nuclear operations, but at what point do we say that the enemy of good enough is constantly looking for perfection while sitting on our hands?
Summed up: Yes, there are alternatives. Many are conceptual and have never been implemented, or at least not on a large scale. They need to be implemented yesterday and not just viewed through hopeful rose-tinted glasses. Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
Sorry, I don't quite understand that phrase. Does that mean you feel kind of attacked?! I hope not - this was not my goal. I think we can just learn by engaging in discussions with one another. And so far, I am very much enjoying our encounter. :)
Well, I mean it took me over an hour to compile that answer, because I didn't want to spread false information. I am (re)learning a lot the stuff as well, and I kind of like to study the matter again. So I will gladly take your thoughts.
Well, yes, I did. As I said, it took me already over an hour to compile the existing answer and the needs of storage capacity in the energy system is reeeaaaally complex and counter intuitive at some points - especially if you need to understand the dependencies of the individual units in an energy-system as well at the same time. So it would have taken me at least another hour to give that topic my due diligence.
We can talk about that if you want / are interested. But I think we need to skip the nuclear power topic then, because otherwise it will get too complex and time consuming.
Oh god. I hate people that are blindly trusting in "Science inventing a magic pill - we don't have to change anything!!1!".
I know. And I was not talking about some "magical future solution" - I am thinking more about solutions that are already existing and have existed and proven viable for over a couple of decades. And they don't need to include nuclear!
I mean, it kind of is NOT effective - at least not cost effective (as I hopefully have pointed out clear enough). We can build "known tech that is effective" which will not be a graveyard for billions of dollars and without the potentially catastrophic consequences nuclear power has. I am not advocating for "sitting on our hands". We need to act quick and change our energy systems for the better - but nuclear energy is just not a viable solution for that. Luckily, there is existing technology that can do the job.
I am afraid, that it is not as simple as you think it might be. The "availability" is kind of a deal breaker when it comes to nuclear.
You still haven't provided a number for "how much nuclear" we need to "do the job", so I am ending with a couple questions instead:
(I can tell you if you don't want to do the research - just tell me.)
you make a weird assumption that a solution that can’t work forever won’t work as a transition strategy
OK. How much (in % of global energy production) do you think we will need from nuclear power to make it work as a "transition strategy"?
i’m sorry i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask. a % global nuclear energy production value is purely symbolic and not a goal.
the real percentage i want is 100% clean and safe energy, because the world is already basically ending. we must run headlong at eliminating fossil fuels as soon as possible, and we already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up.
the reality is, market conditions and the state of energy research will determine the actual global distribution of energy. there are probably experts out there who can estimate where those numbers are headed, but i’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.
Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?
And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn't.)
Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don't want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.
you are asking me to be an expert on topics i have already admitted to being not studied in. that’s not fair because i came into this conversation to defend my position that being anti-nuclear is not well suited to the environmentalist agenda. and nothing else.
i know that france has successfully achieved like 70% nuclear power production, while renewables are slowly ticking up. and i am not against that. that is good. because they aren’t using fossil fuel to get that electricity. if they had waited around for renewables research to catch up they’d still be reliant on coal and oil like the rest of us. if they were forced to shut down all nuclear plants, fossil fuels would spike to take up the slack.
that’s my position. that’s all i’m expressing. you are trying to drag the discussion somewhere else, and that’s not a winning move.