Nuclear solves all these problems and potentially buys enough time to figure out how to mitigate the worst effects of 2C+ degrees of warming which at this point is basically inevitable. France seems to be the only sane nation in the world right now while everyone else is doubling down on what brought us to this point. [1]
> France has 56 nuclear power reactors in operation, with two units closing in 2020 at Fessenheim (61 370 MW(e)) and one EPR reactor under construction at the Flamanville site. Nuclear power plants accounted for 70.6% of total French electricity generation in 2019, and about 90% of France’s electricity comes from low carbon sources (nuclear and renewable).
The global power consumption is around 25000 terawatt hours, so you would need to operate around 5000 nuclear power stations to cover that.
You would need 5000 locations, but then you would run out of uranium and exotic metals in a few years. They are non-renewable resources.
Nuclear is not going to happen in time. Every dollar put into it is a waste at this point. The focus should be on decommissioning existing reactors so that the harm is limited when society eventually falls apart, to give a chance for future generations.
Smaller reactors (which may be, but are not necessarily, "modular") should help with both the build time and cost overrun issue.
The USA has been successfully building small reactors on time, on budget, more or less continuously since the 1950s - they've just been going into warships and submarines and not commercial generating stations.
To give an order of magnitude: Germany is producing 11 times more CO2 to produce the same amount of energy than France.
But nothing is sure about what is going to happen in France. While Macron has announced some investments to develop small modular reactors, the path to get to carbon neutrality is still being discussed.
RTE, the electricity transmission system operator released a massive report last week with 6 possible pathways to get to Carbon Neutrality (1). 3 of them explore doubling down on nuclear while 3 others consist in divesting from nuclear and relying even more on renewables.
All scenarios are considered "realistic" despite each having some uncertainties. The projected costs of all scenarios is in the same order of magnitude (~10B euros). While the scenarios with nuclear seem slightly cheaper given median assumptions, it is a rounding error compared to the uncertainties regarding the cost of capital, the evolution of solar and wind prices, and the capability to deliver new nuclear plants).
Maintaining the existing 60GW of nuclear power would certainly make things easier, but the report makes it clear that it is more of a political decision than a technical constraint.
The report is clear about one thing though, renewables are not optional. There is no scenario where France gets to carbon neutrality in 2050 without massively scaling its production of renewable energy starting now.
China is also constructing many new nuclear power plants. However they're also constructing new fossil fuel plants at the same time. It's tough to keep up with the increasing demand for electricity.
Solar is cheaper than coal only when sun shines brightest in the noon, while the peak demand is generally around sunset. Solar energy generation is anywhere from 30-50% of nameplate capacity depending on location. This necessitates, additional solar equivalent capacity installation of peaker plants, or base load plants to cater to sunlight unavailable hours.
Newer storage tech is needed to address the situation like batteries, hydro or concentrated solar etc. Almost all of them are costlier than straight up burning coal or gas now.
There's a huge number of people in fossil fuel industries. Not only mining and refining, but gas stations and fuel oil truckers etc. It will be very disruptive to tell all those people that their jobs are obsolete and to find something else to do. And the land end equipment that all those companies had bought is now worthless, then they can't pay their loans, so you have to bail out them or at least their banks, so the banks have some money they can lend to other people.
We just survived the worst crisis of century. Perhaps it makes sense to put this plan on hold for couple of years. Or find something a bit more cost effective.
We just survived the worst crisis of the century, which was totally foreseeable and would have been a lot less bad if we had properly prepared as the experts advised us to do for decades.
So let's definitely hold off on preparing for this other inevitable crisis that experts have been warning us about for decades.
You know what's not cost effective? Digging coal out of the ground for cents on the dollar that the crisis is actually gonna cost us in the next 50 years.
why can't anyone say it? these summits are useless. League-Of-Nations level useless. nothing is accomplished, none of the major players are committed to anything more than virtue signalling...
Well, they can’t say it because it’s not true. The Paris agreement is associated with a substantial change in our “current policies” climate trajectory (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/25/climate/world...), and that was before a large paradigm shift in the cost of renewables.
They provide an excellent opportunity for China to convince developed countries to buy its solar panels, all while China increases the number of coal plants every year.
I think it'll ultimately be China who starts the greenvolution, but not in a grand way.
* it has started restructuring its economy to be more longterm oriented. Banning for-profit education, tightening mega corps, exploring ways to encourage child bearing.
* belt-and-road - as well as being a cashcow longterm, it also gives leverage to push your vision. And with that vision being free - china pays for it now - it'll be a much easier sell than trying to convince western world to give money to developing world as per paris climate accords (which by and large remain unimplemented).
Now certainly it'll take a while. US could do it now by imposing an import tax if the supply chain is dirty, but there's no heartfelt urgency.
And is there urgency really? I mean what do the timelines look like if nothing really changes?
[+] [-] algebraically|4 years ago|reply
> France has 56 nuclear power reactors in operation, with two units closing in 2020 at Fessenheim (61 370 MW(e)) and one EPR reactor under construction at the Flamanville site. Nuclear power plants accounted for 70.6% of total French electricity generation in 2019, and about 90% of France’s electricity comes from low carbon sources (nuclear and renewable).
1: https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/France/France.htm
[+] [-] Comevius|4 years ago|reply
You would need 5000 locations, but then you would run out of uranium and exotic metals in a few years. They are non-renewable resources.
Nuclear is not going to happen in time. Every dollar put into it is a waste at this point. The focus should be on decommissioning existing reactors so that the harm is limited when society eventually falls apart, to give a chance for future generations.
[+] [-] i_am_proteus|4 years ago|reply
The USA has been successfully building small reactors on time, on budget, more or less continuously since the 1950s - they've just been going into warships and submarines and not commercial generating stations.
[+] [-] it_citizen|4 years ago|reply
But nothing is sure about what is going to happen in France. While Macron has announced some investments to develop small modular reactors, the path to get to carbon neutrality is still being discussed.
RTE, the electricity transmission system operator released a massive report last week with 6 possible pathways to get to Carbon Neutrality (1). 3 of them explore doubling down on nuclear while 3 others consist in divesting from nuclear and relying even more on renewables.
All scenarios are considered "realistic" despite each having some uncertainties. The projected costs of all scenarios is in the same order of magnitude (~10B euros). While the scenarios with nuclear seem slightly cheaper given median assumptions, it is a rounding error compared to the uncertainties regarding the cost of capital, the evolution of solar and wind prices, and the capability to deliver new nuclear plants).
Maintaining the existing 60GW of nuclear power would certainly make things easier, but the report makes it clear that it is more of a political decision than a technical constraint.
The report is clear about one thing though, renewables are not optional. There is no scenario where France gets to carbon neutrality in 2050 without massively scaling its production of renewable energy starting now.
1: https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2021-10/Futurs-Ene... (see page 17 for the 6 scenarios)
[+] [-] Brometheus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joemazerino|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vkou|4 years ago|reply
China added a net 29.8 GW of coal power to its grid in 2020. (~35 GW added, ~6 GW decomissioned)
It also added a net 71.6 GW of wind power, 48.2 GW of solar power. It's also adding ~6 GW of nuclear power/per year.
[+] [-] 99_00|4 years ago|reply
>It now has 97.8 GW of coal-fired power under construction, and another 151.8 GW at the planning stage.
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal-idUSL4N2E20HS
[+] [-] 99_00|4 years ago|reply
Either countries and companies like to burn money. Or the statement that solar is cheaper than coal is deceptive.
Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plu...
[+] [-] mayama|4 years ago|reply
Newer storage tech is needed to address the situation like batteries, hydro or concentrated solar etc. Almost all of them are costlier than straight up burning coal or gas now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
[+] [-] adamsvystun|4 years ago|reply
Read more here: https://austinvernon.site/blog/renewablesregulatory.html
[+] [-] sp332|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw63738|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinco|4 years ago|reply
So let's definitely hold off on preparing for this other inevitable crisis that experts have been warning us about for decades.
You know what's not cost effective? Digging coal out of the ground for cents on the dollar that the crisis is actually gonna cost us in the next 50 years.
[+] [-] diordiderot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newaccount2021|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] black6|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aww_dang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 99_00|4 years ago|reply
So, in that sense it accomplishes a lot.
[+] [-] foolzcrow|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tifadg1|4 years ago|reply
* it has started restructuring its economy to be more longterm oriented. Banning for-profit education, tightening mega corps, exploring ways to encourage child bearing.
* belt-and-road - as well as being a cashcow longterm, it also gives leverage to push your vision. And with that vision being free - china pays for it now - it'll be a much easier sell than trying to convince western world to give money to developing world as per paris climate accords (which by and large remain unimplemented).
Now certainly it'll take a while. US could do it now by imposing an import tax if the supply chain is dirty, but there's no heartfelt urgency.
And is there urgency really? I mean what do the timelines look like if nothing really changes?