Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Nuclear power

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#1,641
nwdiver said:
You need something cheap
Click to expand...
YES, although I think HVDC is part of the solution, and gas turbines for the corner cases. Off-shore wind also fills in the holes really well.

I like to describe the folly of nuclear this way: if it costs $10/watt to build and its capacity factor is 5% then its system wide cost is ~ $200 a utilized watt. It makes battery storage look like a downright bargain
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iPlug, mspohr and nwdiver
#1,643
ArchEtech said:
No LOL Nuclear primary source with a bit of renewable offset (no resource is 100% renewable so was saying supplement it with some other 99% renewable resources as tech allows. - could have written that better).

I don’t know what the ratio would have to be but way more than half nuclear times be viable.
Click to expand...

If solar, wind and storage are able to meet demand ~90% of the time and the remaining 10% of the time you need ~500GW of supply..... what role does nuclear serve except as a $$$ sink? Why not just use surplus renewables to split water... then use some of that H2 to fill in the 10% gap?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
#1,645
ArchEtech said:
Solar and wind will never and I mean never be able to keep up with 50% or more of the power needs of the developing world.
Click to expand...

??? Why? What limit is it going to hit? Wind is already 33% of SPP. Some reason we can't triple the amount of wind turbines? And those are all 2MW and less. .... some reason we can't replace all those 2MW turbines with the new 6MW turbines?

The US needs ~6000TWh/yr of energy for everything. Solar produces ~230GWh/yr per square mile. So ~26,000 square miles of solar would cover 100% of our needs... that's not counting wind. Golf Courses in the US total >3,500 square miles...

So.... why is this not possible?
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: iPlug, ReddyLeaf and mspohr
#1,646
Not that I completely agree but he did say "developing world" and the 330 million folks in the US are a bit irrelevant for that.

If you want to extrapolate a US middle class lifestyle for the 6 billion (good estimate?) in the developing world, he may be right. The issue may be raw materials to make the panels and the turbines. Also, renewable in large scale needs a better grid. That requires raw materials. And as you approach the 50% of this theoretical power need, the population has grown. And you don't necessarily need to extrapolate a US middle lifestyle but presumably the average human will continue to desire power until a pretty high level. Now you can try to enforce low power usage but that takes military action at some point.

Then, of course, climate conflict and displacement have grown and capital doesn't exist to make it happen.
So, don't be so quick to disagree. It isn't necessarily physical limits, it is limits of politics and capital.
 
#1,647
David_Cary said:
Not that I completely agree but he did say "developing world" and the 330 million folks in the US are a bit irrelevant for that.

If you want to extrapolate a US middle class lifestyle for the 6 billion (good estimate?) in the developing world, he may be right. The issue may be raw materials to make the panels and the turbines. Also, renewable in large scale needs a better grid. That requires raw materials. And as you approach the 50% of this theoretical power need, the population has grown. And you don't necessarily need to extrapolate a US middle lifestyle but presumably the average human will continue to desire power until a pretty high level. Now you can try to enforce low power usage but that takes military action at some point.

Then, of course, climate conflict and displacement have grown and capital doesn't exist to make it happen.
So, don't be so quick to disagree. It isn't necessarily physical limits, it is limits of politics and capital.
Click to expand...
For the developingn world:
- Nuclear is useless... too expensive, no financial or material resources, requires a grid which can't be built
- NG turbines... no gas, no resources
- Coal... no coal, no way to build plants... did I mention pollution?
However,
- Distributed wind and solar are cheap and effective. Doesn't require a grid. Doesn't require mobilizaton of a lot of financial or material resources. Can be built cheaply and incrementally with community resources.
The developing world has an advantage in that they don't have a legacy installed base (same as with telecom) and entrenched political and capital monopolies.
No reason they couldn't have access to "Western" levels of energy with the health, safety and environmental benefits of renewables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPlug and nwdiver
#1,648
David_Cary said:
Not that I completely agree but he did say "developing world" and the 330 million folks in the US are a bit irrelevant for that.

If you want to extrapolate a US middle class lifestyle for the 6 billion (good estimate?) in the developing world, he may be right. The issue may be raw materials to make the panels and the turbines. Also, renewable in large scale needs a better grid. That requires raw materials. And as you approach the 50% of this theoretical power need, the population has grown. And you don't necessarily need to extrapolate a US middle lifestyle but presumably the average human will continue to desire power until a pretty high level. Now you can try to enforce low power usage but that takes military action at some point.

Then, of course, climate conflict and displacement have grown and capital doesn't exist to make it happen.
So, don't be so quick to disagree. It isn't necessarily physical limits, it is limits of politics and capital.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much wrong on all counts. With regards to raw materials the primary constituents of solar panels (Aluminum and Silicon) are literally the two most common materials on Earth not a gas (O2) at room temperature. One big advantage developing countries have is that they tend to be much closer to the equator so you're not going to have a huge seasonal disparity in solar resources. Many people may bypass having a grid just as they bypassed landlines and got cell phones. A grid is useful but it's also vulnerable and expensive. Look at what happening in CA. At $8/kW it's cheaper to be off-grid.
 
#1,649
I don't pretend to be an expert on material science and manufacturing. But just because silicon is abundant, doesn't mean it is economically feasible to harvest it. Using the O2 analogy - does that mean pure O2 is cheap? Or water?
What has the price of solar panels done recently? At some point, limits are reached. Sure, temporary. As is everything. Polysilicon price has more than doubled this year - am I wrong?
You can't ignore the reality that manufacturing panels takes time, energy, factories and raw materials. And scaling up to 100X production (is that the right order of magnitude?) will take more time than we have.

28 coal plants are currently under production in India. India is a developing country. India has the 3rd largest supply of coal in the world. China may not have coal but obviously an easily transportable product. How many coal plants is China building?
India and China together represent about 40% of the developing world. They are using coal and will continue to use coal. Pledge all they want about future usage but their population would like cheaper and more plentiful electricity. How do rolling blackouts in China make the party stronger?

We have the same issue with batteries. Waving away all the limitations doesn't make them go away. None of this is easy and humans being what humans will be, the outcome is pretty clear.
 
#1,650
David_Cary said:
I don't pretend to be an expert on material science and manufacturing. But just because silicon is abundant, doesn't mean it is economically feasible to harvest it. Using the O2 analogy - does that mean pure O2 is cheap? Or water?
What has the price of solar panels done recently? At some point, limits are reached. Sure, temporary. As is everything. Polysilicon price has more than doubled this year - am I wrong?
You can't ignore the reality that manufacturing panels takes time, energy, factories and raw materials. And scaling up to 100X production (is that the right order of magnitude?) will take more time than we have.

28 coal plants are currently under production in India. India is a developing country. India has the 3rd largest supply of coal in the world. China may not have coal but obviously an easily transportable product. How many coal plants is China building?
India and China together represent about 40% of the developing world. They are using coal and will continue to use coal. Pledge all they want about future usage but their population would like cheaper and more plentiful electricity. How do rolling blackouts in China make the party stronger?

We have the same issue with batteries. Waving away all the limitations doesn't make them go away. None of this is easy and humans being what humans will be, the outcome is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
The cost of batteries and solar panels has dropped (following an exponential learning curve) to the point where energy from them is cheaper than coal, NG, nuclear. The raw materials are abundant and the energy required to build them is essentially free, being paid back within a few months. Same for wind.
It's stupid to invest in any other form of energy as China and India are learning, cancelling coal plants.
The only obstacles are political and I don't have the same pessimistic view as you about "people".
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwdiver
#1,651
India is and will remain 50-60% coal if not more.

China is already at 60% coal. China…the largest population in the world.

I don’t know for sure because I didn’t look it up but I bet if you added the population of India and China up, it would be at least 51% of the world. They will continue to grow astronomically.

It doesn’t matter what the US and the rest of the developing world does if you are of the belief that coal plants are a contributing factor in global climate change.

LOL at people who think manufacturing of cars, batteries and solar panels is “net zero”. EV are zero emissions, and that IS something significant, but making the car and the batteries isn’t carbon neutral, and they still are manufactured with limited resources.

Are the mining trucks not using fuel? Are the manufacturing plants making batteries and cars only running on hydro, wind and solar? Nope.

We used to think oil was limitless too. Lithium, and whatever other elements are used in batteries now and in the future, are and always will be a limited resource.

LOL at “we don’t need golf courses”. That’s a solution to build solar arrays? That’s a rational discussion? Ok let’s get rational.

Why do cars need to go over 75mph? Why do they need a 0-60 below 3 seconds? Imagine how many more EV could be produced if they were exactly all the same size, same color, with the same range and had the most efficient battery cost to efficiency! Why do we need cars? Why not all EV public transportation? Why do we need ice cream? Why does anybody need more than 7 pairs of shoes? Why do we need to own anything?
 
#1,653
ArchEtech said:
India is and will remain 50-60% coal if not more.

China is already at 60% coal. China…the largest population in the world.

I don’t know for sure because I didn’t look it up but I bet if you added the population of India and China up, it would be at least 51% of the world. They will continue to grow astronomically.
Click to expand...

You lose the bet. About 2.8B out of 7.7B.

They won't grow astronomically. China's population is already in decline and they can't stop it, despite the removal of the 1-child policy.
India is at 1.4B, and fertility rate has now dropped to 2.0 overall (below the stable rate of 2.1), and 1.6 in cities, so the projections of peak population have reduced from 1.7B to 1.6B.

It's not just those countries. Global population estimates are regularly being revised downwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
#1,654
China and India are both significantly over 1 billion people, which is about 3x the amount of the next few countries. Combined they are almost 40% on the entire worlds population, and will remain primarily on coal for power for the next 100 years.

The United States varied from #3 to #4 most populated country and is less than 1/3 the population of either country.

The worlds most air polluted countries are in the Middle East, China, India, and adjacent countries, and by a simple google search output the rest of the world by a factor of 2-3x. The United States was 84/106 so towards the bottom of the list in one study yet #3 on population. The United States destroying its economy with ridiculous regulations that won’t even touch the global output of the top polluting countries will do absolutely nothing. Does that mean we do nothing, no. I don’t want to live in a trash heap. I’m all for reasonable goals, measures and renewable energy; however, not at the cost of destroying the economy, and reducing the standard of living. We need to have reasonable conversations about what the real costs are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wws
#1,655
ArchEtech said:
India is and will remain 50-60% coal if not more.

China is already at 60% coal. China…the largest population in the world.

I don’t know for sure because I didn’t look it up but I bet if you added the population of India and China up, it would be at least 51% of the world. They will continue to grow astronomically.

It doesn’t matter what the US and the rest of the developing world does if you are of the belief that coal plants are a contributing factor in global climate change.

LOL at people who think manufacturing of cars, batteries and solar panels is “net zero”. EV are zero emissions, and that IS something significant, but making the car and the batteries isn’t carbon neutral, and they still are manufactured with limited resources.

Are the mining trucks not using fuel? Are the manufacturing plants making batteries and cars only running on hydro, wind and solar? Nope.

We used to think oil was limitless too. Lithium, and whatever other elements are used in batteries now and in the future, are and always will be a limited resource.

LOL at “we don’t need golf courses”. That’s a solution to build solar arrays? That’s a rational discussion? Ok let’s get rational.

Why do cars need to go over 75mph? Why do they need a 0-60 below 3 seconds? Imagine how many more EV could be produced if they were exactly all the same size, same color, with the same range and had the most efficient battery cost to efficiency! Why do we need cars? Why not all EV public transportation? Why do we need ice cream? Why does anybody need more than 7 pairs of shoes? Why do we need to own anything?
Click to expand...

Again... why? Why would India not shift to solar and wind as they become cheaper than coal?

Not saying we don't need golf courses. Point is that if we can waste ~3,500 sq miles of land on a silly game we can definitely use 26,000 sq miles of land to power our lives with clean energy. Point is that we have more than enough land to devote to solar. Heck... parking is ~3.5M square miles in the US. So just covered parking would provide 100% of our energy.

So why do you think 100% solar and wind isn't possible? It's not raw materials. It's not cost. It's not intermittence. It's not land area. What's left?

Stanford study demonstrates 100% renewable US grid, with no blackouts​

 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
#1,656
ArchEtech said:
China and India are both significantly over 1 billion people, which is about 3x the amount of the next few countries. Combined they are almost 40% on the entire worlds population
Click to expand...

And yet a little while ago you were happy to just hazard a guess, which was completely wrong. If you really want reasonable conversations.



ArchEtech said:
, and will remain primarily on coal for power for the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

I'd remind you that their populations will fall over the next 100 years, not "grow astronomically".

From a lobbying group but there's some useful information:
ieefa.org

IEEFA: New coal-fired power plants in India will be economically unviable

4 June 2021 (IEEFA India): Much of India’s 33 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power capacity currently under construction and another 29GW in the preconstruction stage will end up stranded, according to a new briefing note by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
ieefa.org ieefa.org

“In the last 12 months no new coal-fired power plants have been announced, and there has been no movement in the 29GW of preconstruction capacity.

“This reflects the lack of financing available for new coal-fired power projects, and also the flattening of electricity demand growth, which has impacted coal the most.”
Click to expand...


We've heard how India will be adding coal power, but the past few a while now but there's been no movement.

Even back in 2017 they were canceling projects:
www.independent.co.uk

India cancels 14 huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low

'India’s solar tariffs have literally been free falling in recent months'
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

India has enormous solar potential.
Compare to the USA:
And Australia:

And it's cheap.

If anything it's coal for industrial heat that's the most challenging thing to replace, not power. But even that's under threat from new electricity-based technologies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReddyLeaf, nwdiver and mspohr
#1,657
Completely agree about population. I think we are close to the max that we should ever see - a few countries still growing but most are stable or in decline. Predictions seem to be between 2070 and 2100 as the peak. But I think that doesn't fully account for Covid and future pandemics. The effect on sperm count was just realized. It also probably doesn't account for worst case climate scenarios. I think peak is closer to 2050 if not sooner.

But I do think the desire for power will increase significantly and the 2 elephants will grow with a mix unfortunately and it will take a long time for them to reach 50% renewable. And at that point, we will have collapse of society and who knows what gets built at that point. The overall energy use goes down and I suppose whatever is more resilient will win out - and that would typically be renewable.

So, of course, the developing world will eventually be near 100% renewable. One should use the word never very sparingly. Like, there will never be a large human presence on Mars. But as far as never in regards to India - that is super hard to predict. The population there will probably collapse and reach well over 50% renewable by 2100 for sure and maybe even a lot sooner.

Why would electricity demand in India be flat? Would that be pandemic flat? Or just a "flattening"? The forecast I found is 8% growth for 2022 and the last 20 years were a doubling. Nothing flattening about that - more like accelerating. There was as 12% increase in 6 months in 2021 - ouch but probably some seasonality to that and pandemic effect.
 
#1,658
The Atlanta Journal Constitution: How Georgia nuclear project’s big finish went so wrong.
www.ajc.com

Plant Vogtle: How Georgia nuclear project’s big finish went so wrong

Early in 2021, crews at Georgia Power’s nuclear expansion site at Plant Vogtle were struggling to find all the leaks in a pool built to hold spent, highly radioactive fuel.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Don Grace said he believed Georgia Power repeatedly gave unreasonable projections because the company has been “trying to continue to justify the project.”

Grace, an engineer and nuclear industry veteran hired by Georgia regulators to provide an unvarnished view of the project, suggested Georgia Power’s goal is “to delay as late as possible what the real costs are going to be. I don’t know, certainly that is a valid question that one would ask.”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: nwdiver
#1,660
Reuters: Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri.
www.reuters.com

Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd are set to cooperate with the United States and Bill Gates' venture company to build a high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming, the daily Yomiuri reported on Saturday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com


TerraPower, an advanced nuclear power venture founded by Gates, is set to open its Natrium plant in Wyoming in 2028. The U.S. government will provide funding to cover half of the $4 billion project. read more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ulmo
Energy vs. Politics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
ArchEtech
A
omarsultan
Trump proposes higher payments for coal, nuclear power
Replies
20
Views
3K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
Xenoilphobe
Xenoilphobe
B
Tesla Model Y - Things You Should Know!
Replies
165
Views
25K
Model Y
Dennisis
Dennisis
ZsoZso
FUD article about CO2 pollution of EVs
Replies
7
Views
2K
Energy, Environment, and Policy
EinSV
EinSV
M
Ford
Replies
23
Views
5K
TSLA Investor Discussions
betstarship
B
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu