As much as I’ve been rooting for nuclear, I think the ship has sailed. If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive with renewables plus some storage (I’ll get to that in a minute) then why would you ever deploy it.
Renewables are really cheap and getting cheaper, so some combination of overbuild with storage is probably the winning formula.
Storage is a little too expensive as lithium ion batteries, but there’s literally a hundred alternative there. I’m fond of pumped hydro, which we can do anywhere with a height difference, we don’t need to restrict that to existing dams. But there’s lots of options there and many are very viable.
So nuclear (including hypothetical nuclear fusion) will probably not acquire significant market share. Unless you can somehow make it cost competitive.
If you look at planned energy projects, the market has very clearly spoken. That doesn’t mean it can’t change, but I don’t think it’s likely.
> So nuclear (including hypothetical nuclear fusion) will probably not acquire significant market share. Unless you can somehow make it cost competitive.
Ontario is a great counter example.
We have something like 60-70% of our power from nuclear, representing most of the base load. We're building more plants soon too.
Electricity is cheap, and used to be even cheaper before it was privatized.
And we have no nuclear weapons program supporting these plants.
Ontario has cheap nuclear because it's nuclear fleet was build in the best possible time, the past.
Even china [0] renowned for pushing projects through and "getting stuff done" hasn't been able to push the price and construction time of nuclear down enough to make them cheap and easy to build.
Ontario is a great example where no no nuclear projects have been built or proposed at a competitive price. I stand by my assertion that nuclear is dead in the West until shown contemporary numbers to the contrary.
>If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive with renewables plus some storage (I’ll get to that in a minute) then why would you ever deploy it.
Because it can work rain or shine. Wind or no wind.
What happens if we have no wind and have a lot of clouds for a few weeks in an area? The storage is limited and nuclear can still produce. Yes, I understand other areas can likely pick up the slack, but nuclear doesn't have that issue. At a minimum nuclear is a good thing to have as a back up even if we have sufficient renewables.
Also, don't forget climate change is supposed to cause more extreme weather events. We don't know what impact that will have on wind and solar.
The answer is a combination of storage, overbuild, long distance interconnections, and diversification ( which mostly means we keep some natural gas plants around, not new nuclear.)
Solar can produce on cloudy days, but can be greatly reduced. I've seen estimates at 10-25% of the normal rate on a very cloudy day. If there is no wind being generated at the same time it could cause issues.
Sure overbuilding might work, but only getting 10% of the solar and 0% of the wind would require such massive overbuilding it would probably not be practical.
I did mention interconnection. While it can help, there can be extreme weather over large parts of the country at one time. We have fires in Canada blocking out some parts of the North East. Imagine if there was a large fire happening in California and a hurricane in the south. As climate change continues that is only going to get worse blocking out solar in large chunks of the country.
The problem is determining the correct amount of storage. If we get 10% of the normal solar along with no wind for a week or two would there be enough storage? I'm guessing not.
It is good you agree that we need some diversity. So many people are radicals and say we don't need an alternative. I agree with your sentiment, but think we should also have nuclear not just natural gas. Nuclear is reliable and clean. Why use natural gas if we don't need to?
> I agree with your sentiment, but think we should also have nuclear not just natural gas. Nuclear is reliable and clean. Why use natural gas if we don't need to?
Because natural gas is cheap and nuclear is not. If you’re using tax payer dollars, you absolutely can be wasteful and choose the more expensive option. That may even make sense when you factor in the cost of the carbon dioxide pollution. We’re not there yet, but it could come back around, especially if you implement a high enough carbon tax, which I’ve always advocated for.
I think you can get potentially very long term energy storage via pumped hydro, so I expect that would help as well. But natural gas can also be fired up occasionally on those very cloudy days when the wind is also not blowing. The pollution might not matter if you offset it via other means or you use green hydrogen or ammonia or something to that effect.
Since we already have a lot of natural gas power plants, we might not need to build any more, just maintain the more efficient ones in working order.
Rooftop solar in Australia is now cheaper in some jurisdictions than transmission per kWh. Meaning, if I tried to build a nuke or any other centralized generator and I gave the electricity away for free, rooftop solar would still be cheaper per kWh because consumers don’t need to pay to maintain transmission infrastructure..
Of course, only when the sun is shining. But it’s an incredible Lego block we’ve got to play with in building this new energy system, zero marginal cost generation.
There’s sodium ion, molten sodium, iron air, probably various options with iron or aluminum. There’s literally dozens of promising battery chemistries for grid storage where weight and density don’t matter.
> If newer advances can’t make it cost competitive
Did they ever get rid of the rule that prohibits nuclear from being cost competitive? Its opponents got it so if they ever found a way to make it cost less the money explicitly had to be spent on new safety measures. Which obviously not only makes it impossible to reduce the cost but also removes any incentive to try.
Google doesn't want to find a more specific link right now, but you can see the implication from the definition: If you find a way to make nuclear cost less than something else, now it's economical to make it cost more in order to reduce radiation exposure, with no lower limit where you can stop.
Renewables are really cheap and getting cheaper, so some combination of overbuild with storage is probably the winning formula.
Storage is a little too expensive as lithium ion batteries, but there’s literally a hundred alternative there. I’m fond of pumped hydro, which we can do anywhere with a height difference, we don’t need to restrict that to existing dams. But there’s lots of options there and many are very viable.
So nuclear (including hypothetical nuclear fusion) will probably not acquire significant market share. Unless you can somehow make it cost competitive.
If you look at planned energy projects, the market has very clearly spoken. That doesn’t mean it can’t change, but I don’t think it’s likely.