Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?

[TheTalkingMule]

funny thing grid data shows highest demand ~18:00 and zero solar in Germany...
Im all for solar in sunny places, but looking froward for advanced nuclear for countries which don't have much sun/hydro

41% of German residential solar arrays sold in 2015 were sold with integrated battery storage. It's not that big of a problem.

And that's before you have an entire fleet of EVs which you can choose to "smart charge" at the convenience of the grid operator. Just like solar itself, large scale battery storage is not nearly the major undertaking that people think.

 

[Brovane]

As mentioned in other responses. That question is largely irrelevant for two reasons.

- Nuclear also requires load following generation; either storage or peakers.

Nuclear is base load power that runs 24x7 that is why it has the highest capacity factor of any type of power generation that doesn't put out C02 emissions.

- Installed Solar is currently displacing generation not capacity. This will be true for the next 5-10 years. So we've got awhile until 24x7 costs become relevant.

If you are comparing cost per W for installed Utility scale power generation then you need to consider the capacity factor of the source of that power generation. If you don't consider the capacity factor you are just fooling yourself as to the actual cost of generating that power.

 

[Brovane]

41% of German residential solar arrays sold in 2015 were sold with integrated battery storage. It's not that big of a problem.

And that's before you have an entire fleet of EVs which you can choose to "smart charge" at the convenience of the grid operator. Just like solar itself, large scale battery storage is not nearly the major undertaking that people think.

Enough battery capacity to handle the fact that Solar Arrays are only generating power about 25% of the time?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Enough battery capacity to handle the fact that Solar Arrays are only generating power about 25% of the time?

Enough battery capacity to stabilize demand a bit as they take incremental steps toward 100% renewables. Taking individual homes entirely off-grid one at a time is about the worst worst way to go about transitioning to a sustainable future.

 

[lklundin]

So are you saying capacity factor is not a important question to consider when looking at the cost to generate power?

"How would a nuclear power plant match the intraday consumption variation?" It doesn't because Nuclear power isn't dispatchable and is. setup to run constantly 24x7 which is why it has the highest capacity factor of any method of generating power that doesn't use fossil fuels.

How would a Solar PV or Wind Farm power plant match the intraday consumption variation? It doesn't because PV Solar and Wind farms are not dispatchable either.

Which is why a mixture of power sources is important and that is why without exorbitant costs we cannot switch over to 100% renewable energy. That is also why Nuclear needs to remain a important part of the power mix for the US power grid if we expect to continue to reduce C02 emissions.


So let's stop quoting cost per W for Utility scale power plants when we know that is just one part of the equation for the cost equation for a power plant.

I appreciate and agree with your argument in favour of an energy-mix. As such I hope we can agree that it is misleading to base any discussion on the cost of a single (solar based) power source for 24/7 production.

Capacity factor is useful for multiplying onto the source's nameplate power, for obtaining the actual production, averaged over time, which also allows for determining the cost per unit energy (e.g. the LCOE, the levelised cost of electricity). Apart from this (important) use, the capacity factor unimportant when comparing energy sources.

Solar PV is very useful in the energy-mix because power consumption increases during the day. In sunny places such as southern US states there is actually a direct correlation between solar PV power output and power consumption (due to the widespread use of Air-Conditioning). Solar PV has other advantages, it can be installed directly at the end user, avoiding transmission losses and when coupled with a battery improving supply stability, an issue e.g. in the USA. Also, solar PV gives home owners and brick-and-mortar companies the option to invest capital for a return in reduced energy cost and with that a reduced exposure to risk of increased, future energy cost.

As for the cost of Wind and Solar PV, their price-performance is improving exponentially and with zero marginal cost it really is inevitable that they will beat any power source in the coming decades (I am leaving a door open for the fusion reactor, which is about that far away).

A society not overburdened by lobbyism from the fossile+utility industry can get as close to a 100% renewable energy-mix as it wishes with the following ingredients:
1) Wind farms (with numerical weather prediction for knowing the production ahead of time),
2) Solar PV, residential and utility based, coupled with an extra investment in batteries where there is not the political will to use the grid as battery,
3) Improved HVDC infrastructure that allows for the transport of power over relatively large distances, 500+ km, thus connecting regions with different weather systems (this would also do wonders for the stability of the US grid),
4) Hydro power, which as a dispatchable power source and together with the HVDC transport is useful for matching the power need (this also works for nuclear power, Sweden has for decades covered 90% of its electricity need with nuclear + hydro) - and hydro can double as pumped storage with a 75% efficiency.

You can see in real-time how far the market forces have brought the Nord Pool countries on their way to rid themselves of those terrible fossile fuels (and yes, there is still a significant nuclear component):

The control room

To get entirely rid of the fossile fuels we need BEVs for transportation and heat pumps for heating. I guess airplanes will come last, or maybe they can just use a synthetic fuel made with energy from surplus wind farm production.

 

[lklundin]

Then NRDC, Green Peace and the Sierra Club go an sue to try to prevent the reactor from being built.
Then 1000s of concerned citizens demand their politicians cancel building the reactor.

A democracy has to take these concerns seriously. And one has to face the reality that:
A) Nuclear power was born as a biproduct of a weapons technology, which causes real problems such as proliferation.
B) The nuclear industry screwed up massively with its overly optimistic assertions, such as 'too cheap to meter' and 'so safe that accidents are virtually impossible', while ignoring challenges with long term waste storage and decommissioning costs.

This is not something that is easily forgotten, nor forgiven.

Load following is done TODAY in France with reactors designed in the 70s and built in the 80s.

France has become a really poor example of a country with a successful nuclear industry. About 1/3 of their nuclear reactors are continuously offline, and they have real concerns about power cuts for the coming winter.[1] They can't finish their Flamanville 3 reactor and are thus putting their commitment to build Hinkley Point C in jeopardy - which if ever built is going to deliver terribly, terribly expensive power.

Meanwhile wind farms from 100 MW to 1 GW (with capacity factors around 50%) are popping up all over the globe. In the US wind based PPA's are traded for less 20$/MWh. In five years it will be much less, while the nuclear industry is still trying to solve its problems.

One cannot realistically be optimistic about nuclear power. Too bad, since it sounded promising.

[1]
France and Britain In Danger of Winter Power Shortages

[2]
France’s nuclear-energy champion is in turmoil

 

[macpacheco]

A) nuclear power born as a biproduct of weapons technology... true. For PWR/BWR, 100% true. MSRs are the path the world should have taken if nuclear was developed without the cold war.

B) The nuclear industry claimed that with nuclear fusion, power would be too cheap to meter. Who cares ? That was 60 years ago. How is this remotely relevant ? Whats your logical point, except for an anti nuclear sentimental rant ?
Nuclear critics will continue re-hashing things that happened 40, 50, 60 years ago if they think it will get them more followers. Its a low blow that is frowned upon by anyone that understand how nuclear power actually works.

I was talking about load following in France, which still makes over 75% of their electrons from nuclear. The logical criticisms here is that after doing everything right in the 80s and 90s, France then abandoned their nuclear strategic pathway and slowly left their nuclear industry to rot.
Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto and a few other projects are all Areva EPR reactors. Firsts of their kind. Designs created after Areva incorporated a dying Germany reactor company, and instead of electing ONE nuclear engineering/design approach and sidelining the other, decided to combine the two, producing a reactor that's extra humongous (1.7GWe) yet manages to throw away the economic advantages of its scale with many messed up design approaches.
EPR is the opposite of IMSR. IMSR = Keep it simple stupid. EPR everything including the kitchen sink.
But labelling the entire nuclear industry for what Areva is doing is quite unfair.
The fundamental sales pitch for Westinghouse AP1000, GE ESBWR and most new designs is their bill of materials is much lower than older designs, while delivering better safety. The issue is those cost benefits will really materialize after they build a handful of each and make it past any construction/fabrication issues. The other recent design, GE ABWR can breed from thorium !

Change wind energy credits to a % of their sales revenue, and remove their priority to sell power to the grid vs baseload generators. They have to sell for less, say with a 30% subsidy only. The whole math is the result of the way too generous per MWh energy credit paid even when the turbine is making juice at 3AM and the grid is overloaded.

Please take a look where: Fading into the sunset: Solar and wind energy get five more years of tax credits with a phase-down | Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources
So, a wind turbine might get $ 23/MWh credit, while selling power @ $20 / MWh, humm, that's more credits from the subsidies than from selling power, get that ?

 

[nwdiver]

If you are comparing cost per W for installed Utility scale power generation then you need to consider the capacity factor of the source of that power generation. If you don't consider the capacity factor you are just fooling yourself as to the actual cost of generating that power.

A kWh generated from nuclear is ~2x as expensive as a kWh from solar or wind.

Even worse for the cost effectiveness of nuclear is that as wind and solar erode base load the cost of nuclear will rise since a plant operating at ~20% capacity is nearly as expensive as one operating at 90%.

 

[macpacheco]

That's when wind is producing... Some wind turbines have been properly sited in places that get consistent winds around the year/day. But your argument breaks down in many turbines placed such that they go 100% production for days followed by days at near zero. That's very bad, but turbines that stay above 40% outputs (even if their AVERAGE power output is low than that maniac-depressed turbine). How the current wind procurement system takes care of that ?
Yeah, that's fixed with lots and lots and lots of gas being burnt.
And who's going to pay to store that extra electricity when solar/wind combined goes above 100% for hours and every battery/pumped hydro overflows ? Nuclear doesn't have that. Old reactors are a different deal, but new ones run predictably at 100% power and stop just to refuel for many cycles, and the shutdown periods are scheduled to coincide with known trough periods in the year. Diablo Canyon stores excess production from 11PM-7AM with pumped hydro and uses that to make extra juice in the highest peak times. Meanwhile, that same pumped hydro will be far less productive with solar and wind, cause they're not as predictable.

 

[nwdiver]

T
Yeah, that's fixed with lots and lots and lots of gas being burnt.

??? Would you prefer more without wind? Wind has been replacing a lot more fools fuel in the last 20 years than nuclear. Nuclear started a vacation in 1985 and is just now trying to get back to work... heavily hungover...

Nuclear doesn't have that.

Yes..... it does..... christ... how many times do we have discuss this? Take SPP... demand this week has fluctuated between 24GW and 38GW. Nuclear is base load. Even if SPP had enough nuclear... what's going to make up that 14GW gap? Not nuclear.... not unless you want to pay ~$1/kWh for a peaking nuclear plant. Just like with wind and solar... nuclear needs peaking power, storage or demand response.

Wind on the other hand.... you actually CAN cost effectively install ~40GW and use demand response to make 'create' demand for the few occasions you're actually at 40GW... or idle the turbines... they're $1/w.... you won't go broke occasionally curtailing a generator that cheap. Yes... you would need far more backup kW (WHICH ALREADY EXISTS!!) with wind but standby generation doesn't create GHGs... Online generation does.... and you can displace twice and many kWh/$ with wind or solar vs Nuclear...until the miracle happens and we can build a nuclear plant for ~$2/w...

 

[lklundin]

Wind on the other hand.... you actually CAN cost effectively install ~40GW and use demand response to make 'create' demand for the few occasions you're actually at 40GW... or idle the turbines... they're $1/w.... you won't go broke occasionally curtailing a generator that cheap.

One of the reasons Denmark generates more than 50% of its electricity from wind is that the fossile turbines receive some payment for running in idle, which takes a minimal amount of fuel. This idling of these huge turbines has a stabilizing effect on the grid.

 

[WannabeOwner]

way too generous per MWh energy credit paid even when the turbine is making juice at 3AM and the grid is overloaded.

I don't have a dog in this race, but my view on this is that it would be better to tool-up for "storage" of over production. As we move to more renewables we need more levelling tech. So I'm happy that 3AM wind (I get that too!) is unreasonably subsidised, lets sponsor solving that with tech for pumping water uphill, melting salt, static battery storage, V2Grid ... or something way better that Boffins have yet to invent.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't have a dog in this race, but my view on this is that it would be better to tool-up for "storage" of over production. As we move to more renewables we need more levelling tech. So I'm happy that 3AM wind (I get that too!) is unreasonably subsidised, lets sponsor solving that with tech for pumping water uphill, melting salt, static battery storage, V2Grid ... or something way better that Boffins have yet to invent.

Ditto... you can look at the subsidy for unneeded electricity as an incentive to find ways to use it. Solutions for excess 3am electricity are the same solutions we'll need to displace more fossil fuel generation at noon.

We need to give up this absurd paradigm that changing supply to match demand is the only way to manage the grid. Changing demand to match supply will soon be soooo.... much....cheaper.... AND easier.

 

[lklundin]

I don't have a dog in this race

I do and so do you.

The CO2 pollution makes it unlikely that the global temperature increase will be less than 2C and quite possible that significant coastal parts of the globe become uninhabitable. If on the order of 1 billion people become homeless migrants a whole range of very bad things will happen, like people from far away places coming to literally knock on your door - on the assumption that you are not yourself one of the migrants.

Elon Musk has outlined the potential for this CO2-pollution induced catastrophe in his calls for a carbon tax.

Here is an example from a year ago, the world map at about 7m30s illustrates this along with his words
'Most people live very close to the ocean' and 'some countries of course that are very low lying and would be completely under water in a climate crisis'.

So most if not all of us are stake holders when it comes to getting rid of the fossil fuels.

To really get rid of the CO2-pollution, we need people to pressure their politicians to replace all subsidies on renewable energy with a carbon tax. If someone manages to build acceptable types of a nuclear reactor, in addition to the hydro-, wind and solar power, then so much the better. But it is a race against the time and with limited funds, so expensive solutions with an effect 20 years from now are no good.

 

[hockeythug]

If on the order of 1 billion people become homeless migrants a whole range of very bad things will happen, like people from far away places coming to literally knock on your door - on the assumption that you are not yourself one of the migrants.

What hyperbole. Jesus. Worry about all the migrants your genius leader already allowed in not even due to climate change.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I do and so do you.

I'm impacted by the change, but have little say in it of course, except to do what I can which includes:

We have replaced 2x Oil Boilers to now only burn logs, sourced locally, for winter heating. We have added Passive House extension to house, in which we can hibernate during winter; it needs virtually no heating, so the only heating now is "enough" to prevent any cold/condensation damage to main part of house during winter. No AirCon requirement here in Summer. We have thermal solar and PV and shortly will also have Wind generation. We have BEV. My aim is that we will shortly be electricity-neutral, or net-exporter. We grow 80%, maybe more, of the vegetables we eat. We have rain-water-harvesting sufficient to irrigate the garden without mains-water. I moan at family every time they buy any additional food with high air-miles

... I reckon we, as a family, have done most of what we can - much of it, of course, is completely un-cost-effective but I'm happy to pioneer as best as I reasonably can.

 

[lklundin]

What hyperbole. Jesus. Worry about all the migrants your genius leader already allowed in not even due to climate change.

First of all, you cannot hold me responsible for fixing a decision of Angela Merkel that you consider (not) a genius. In fact, since you are hailing from the USA you really should think twice about holding an individual voter responsible for the election of a leader you do not respect.

Secondly, it is not hyperbole, but rather entirely possible that an unabated CO2-pollution can displace on the order of 1 billion people - although I do concede that the full effect is more likely to be experienced by our children than ourselves.[1]

Thirdly, in case the climate crisis than Elon and other's are trying to prevent actually happens, the migrant pressure that Europe will experience will be orders of magnitudes worse than the current one that you seem to worry about. So anyone feeling that the current migrant pressure on Europe is a problem, should really worry. In relative terms I would expect a severe climate crisis to subject Europe in this century to a migrant pressure similar to what Europe experienced during the Migration Period in the first millenium.[2] We are in other words not dealing with small potatoes here. But don't take my word for it, just listen to the presentations that Elon Musk is giving, such as the one I linked to above.

[1] Climate Change by the Numbers: 760 Million Displaced by Rising Sea Levels
[2] Migration Period - Wikipedia

 

[winfield100]

A) nuclear power born as a biproduct of weapons technology... true. For PWR/BWR, 100% true. MSRs are the path the world should have taken if nuclear was developed without the cold war.

B) The nuclear industry claimed that with nuclear fusion, power would be too cheap to meter. Who cares ? That was 60 years ago. How is this remotely relevant ? Whats your logical point, except for an anti nuclear sentimental rant ?
Nuclear critics will continue re-hashing things that happened 40, 50, 60 years ago if they think it will get them more followers. Its a low blow that is frowned upon by anyone that understand how nuclear power actually works.

Nuclear critics will continue re-hashing things that happened 40, 50, 60 years ago

BS False flag, there are more recent ones

North Anna nuclear reactor in Virginia, USA, IF the earthquake on an unknown fault had been just a bit stronger would have cracked the containment AND the spent fuel bunker was damaged in 5.8 quake in 2011
Officials Admit North Anna Fuel Bunker Damaged By Quake As Feds Launch Reactor Core Damage Inspection - HNN - Higgins News Network

leaking cooling canals leaking radioactives at Turkey Point Nuke near Miami, Florida in -->>2016 in Biscayne Bay
FPL faces lawsuit over leaky nuclear cooling canals at Turkey Point

you are correct, nuke is safe, until it goes kablooie, fast or slowly, and screws everybody
you are just protecting your sunk costs

 

[Bangor Bob]

This one is my favorite. Half of Indian Point, NY shut down when a large bird relieved itself at takeoff.

Bird Poop Caused Shut Down at Indian Point 3 Nuclear Plant

Fortunately, there was gas backup standing by to cover nuclear's intermittency...

 

[macpacheco]

There's little purpose in posting here, when its just fine to use emotional arguments instead of rational ones.
There is enough nuclear power is the world to produce enough MWh every year to power all of North America. ALL OF IT. If nuclear were actually unsafe, there would be multiple real accidents every year, not "close calls". In my book calling those close calls is nothing but a means to make the public fear nuclear power, which falls right into fossil fuel interests.
Nuclear is safe. It kills less than 1/10000 as coal, 1/100 as much as natural gas. End coal and gas first, it kills far more people.
Life is full of risks. Until you can prove me that living right in front of nuclear reactors adds anything more than 0.1% risks over normal risks of living, you're not making any sense in my book.