[pydry]

We cant switch overnight.

It takes about 1/10 or 1/20th the amount of time and 1/5th the cost to build equivalent solar production. It's better to start with that and let pumped storage, batteries and hydrogen play catch up than pay 5x more and wait 10-20x longer for equivalent levels of nuclear power production.

Right now we use so much natural gas that a GWh of solar or nuclear produced energy is essentially just a GWh of natural gas that never gets burned.

That GWh can be produced in two years less consistently or twenty years more consistently. Which do you choose?

Id take two years. Storage and demand shaping infrastructure will catch up.

[8bitsrule]

>Storage and demand shaping infrastructure will catch up

Storage in particular could be MUCH cheaper. (And still be centralized to conserve public-utility oversight and dangers from all those saboteurs out there somewhere.)

Battery storage is VERY expensive and hard on the environment. I continue to see little attention being paid to merely simple gravity storage.

Yes, traditional large-scale pumped hydro exists (usually using expensive turbines to pump water uphill, like the plants used in the UK for decades to get past tea-time. There are many more in the U.S.) They're usually expensive (good for getting tax-payer dollars into constructor pockets) ... time-consuming as well ... and need a hill for a reservoir and a water-source. (Of course we have -all the time in the world- right?)

But on a large scale, electricity can also be stored much more simply and economically by moving VERY heavy weights uphill ... or lifting VERY heavy weights out of a hole. Already existing and proven steel cables can lift 'barrels' containing hundreds or thousands of tons of (very cheap) rocks. Construction times and $/MW cost savings over high-tech 'solutions'? might be 10-1000 times lower.

[belorn]

Let say a natural gas power plant has a life time expectancy of 20 years. If we say that in 20 years we can abandon natural gas with nuclear, then lets put that as a deadline for when the last natural gas power plant will be demolished.

We need to stop building new natural gas power plants and existing ones need to have a planned obsolescence so that investors know when their investment will no longer be worth anything.

[c0llision]

gas power plant != natural gas power plant. Green hydrogen gas generated from excess renewables and biogas exist, and can often be used in existing power plants. Though they are expensive right now, we've no idea how the technology may evolve in the next few years.

In Ireland they are actually building natural gas power plants with the assumption they will be stop operation as little as 5 years and only used for emergency purposes from then on. This is because they are using OCGT gas turbines which were invented for use in 3rd world countries and are much cheaper than conventional CCGT gas turbines.

Also don't forget that nuclear power plants have to go offline for maintenance like everything else, and I'm not sure it will ever be financially viable to have redundant nuclear power plants. France recently had to take 50% of their power plants offline for a few months to fix cracks and Japan had to take all of them offline for a few years after Fukushima. Thats why it's necessary to have emergency backup power plants and right now these are typically gas.

[godelski]

Fun fact. Nuclear power can technically load follow. It just generally isn't a good idea because it isn't very cost effective to not be running your nuclear power plant at all times. Also fun fact, nuclear power is really useful for high energy intensive operations such as splitting oxygen and hydrogen atoms from one another.

Side note: The France story is much more complicated. It doesn't sell narratives well, but what can I say, truth is complicated. It's not going to fit into this comment, but it has to do with regulations, covid, Ukraine, Germany, lack of European self-sufficiency, economics, and so much more. It's best to not bring up France's recent nuclear fiasco unless you're willing to get into the weeds, because otherwise you'll just start a fight by anyone who knows a bit more but still not the full story (which means multiple people will argue confidently and a clusterfuck ensues). With no doubt, France has blame to play. But to give just a push to find more info, remember that inspections and maintenance are scheduled quite far in advance. That many had been pushed off because of a global pandemic, and then war broke out. One could say this was quite a series of unfortunate events. Yes, blame France, but placing all blame on France is like destroying all farms except for one and then blaming that farm for famine when it got overrun by pests (even if it was entirely that farmer's fault, was it?)

[cycomanic]

I think the point is that people often point to France as "look it works" (while simultaneously saying "there Germany terrible") when the reality is that no France doesn't just work (and yes failure modes are always about multiple disadvantages coincidences, all the other stuff is usually covered).

[godelski]

Saying France "works" or "doesn't work" isn't so straight forward, but I definitely lean more towards the "it works" side. I mean it is a net exporter of energy and is only rivaled by Sweden in terms of emissions per kWhr (Sweden has a lot of hydro, which is great, but not available to everyone. Can also be dangerous, see Banqiao, but that's not very relevant tbh). Germany on the other hand has 6x the emissions. They've been making great strides, but still have yet to be able to remove themselves from their coal and gas addictions (gas is potentially worse than typical accounting but let's use official numbers to keep fair). That is also what put them at the mercy of Russia (and consequently several other EU countries who depended on either Russia or Germany for power, which increased demand from French power), but also can be seen as a strategic move politically since trade partners are less likely to go to war but it can also be leverage. As you might see, this is in fact a pretty complicated clusterfuck. But we can all agree that German electricity is procured at 6x the emissions of French electricity. Success does depend upon which metrics you care about, but if we're talking climate, emissions are definitely one of the most important ones. A big issue is that Germany is often viewed as a mover and role model in the climate space but even by EU standards they are one of the worst offenders (doubly so if you bin the countries by economic size. i.e. Poorer countries have worse emissions). So I get why people push back against Germany because while we should congratulate them for their large rollout of renewables we should still criticize them for their emission levels and inability to actually match what others have done (even many with little to no nuclear, see UK)

You may find this site useful strictly for the electricity and subsequent emissions side. It'll be insufficient for total emissions though (as that includes many things beyond electricity) and certainly isn't adequate for understanding geopolitics or other things. I suggest poking around, using the emission tab per region (defaults on production) and also changing the time scale to at least 30 days to be a more accurate view of this specific question we're addressing.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR

[cauch]

I liked you first comment about things being complicated and that "good" or "bad" is difficult to tell because people will give more importance to the partial elements they see.

Unfortunately, you've done just that in this last comment.

One detail that I see too often with people advancing similar arguments than you here is that they just take two countries and compare them if it was two lab experiments done within the same conditions and repeated sufficiently to bring conclusive results.

There are plenty of elements about that: the way France and Germany are industrialised is pretty different so what worked/did not work for one does not mean it would have worked or not for the other, maybe if Germany would have followed the same path as France the German specificity would have made Germany emitting 8x more instead of 6x (or not, of course), maybe the German way had 60% chance of success and bad luck failed while the France way had 40% chance of success and lucky then they did not failed (not saying it's the case, just that it's tricky to pretend getting lessons from what happened), maybe one country had pushed itself in a corner and will struggle on the last few yards while the other had a worst initial score because they were paving the road (again, not saying it's the case), maybe the success of France relied on having Germany going that way (who knows how the French nuclear park would have evolved if they had Germany that would have provided electricity with exactly the same characteristics and fulfilling the same needs on the same market but having the same drawbacks on the same market), ...

It does not mean we cannot get lessons, but the lessons you bring (or the method itself) are just invalid: no, looking at the electricity map today is just not a way to conclude which strategy is the best. And everyone who reasons like that is just muddying the water rather than being helpful.

[AnthonyMouse]

> That GWh can be produced in two years less consistently or twenty years more consistently. Which do you choose?

Both.

Intermittent generation methods are more problematic the more of the grid you try to replace with them. You have solar generation during the day, you run your natural gas plants less during the day but still run them at night, great. Keep building solar until you can stop running them during the day at all. Installing that much capacity could take 20 years.

At that point you'd have to contend with what to do at night. But hey, by then the nuclear plants you started building today are online. You might also look into ways of speeding up the process, because it shouldn't take 20 years to do that.