[usrbinbash]

Pray tell, what is "unrealistic" about nuclear energy as an alternative?

There are only 436 nuclear reactors in the world (for comparisons sake, there are more than 2400 coal power plants worldwide, and the US alone have more than 980 natural-gas power stations (2022).

And yet this small number of nuclear reactors produces 10% of global electricity.

[jncfhnb]

Nuclear energy has a levelized cost of energy that is about 5-10x more expensive than utility solar, with solar expected to continue becoming exponentially cheaper

[usrbinbash]

And? Solar cannot do it, it's as simple as that, so the cost is irrelevant.

> becoming exponentially cheaper

"Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power.

But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further.

Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands.

[jncfhnb]

> Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power.

Not “at first” but demonstrably over time and ongoing. Yes it will cease eventually but it seems like that’s not near.

> But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further.

Powering the us on batteries for a full day is not a realistic goal. But batteries are already cost competitive and shuttering gas peaker plants.

> Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands.

Rooftop solar is actually more expensive than nuclear actually. Or at least a year or two ago.

If you build a bunch of nuclear you will not be able to compete on price with cheap renewables during the day. But you can’t just turn a nuclear reactor on and off so you’ll have to still generate and operate at a loss. Which means to be profitable you have to raise prices to make up for it in the off hours. Which, in turn, makes you less competitive and makes it more commercially viable for batteries.

Tl;dr, market forces will punish you. Renewables and batteries and fossil fuels as backup are the clear winners

[usrbinbash]

> But you can’t just turn a nuclear reactor on and off

No, but I can regulate its output up and down. You don't have to turn a reactor off entirely, its output can be regulated up and down without shutting down completely.

> and makes it more commercially viable for batteries.

The problem with batteries isn't commercial viability. The problem is physical availability. There simply isn't enough Li in the world to make Solar as powerful as it would need to be to stem a majority of our energy requirements, and as of now, we don't have another battery technology that would be suitable.

At a macro view, the whole thing isn't an economic question.

Here are the three facts:

1. We cannot continue with fossil fuel power as we did before (because climate change)

2. Solar isn't up to the task of taking (among other reasons because we don't have the storage required)

3. The worlds energy demands are increasing. Maybe it could be made to grow slower, but reversing it is unlikely

So, what options does that leave us with? Wind suffers from similar problems as Solar. Hydro is geographically limited, as is Tidal. Geothermal is likely too weak. Fusion power doesn't exist yet. And as cool as a Dyson-Swarm would be, that's even further away than Fusion.

So, what technology remains?

[jncfhnb]

1) lithium mining is up 6x since 10 years ago. You shouldn’t assume the average over ten years is a good indicator about capacity to mine. Mining rates are growing quickly.

2) there are competing materials for new battery tech besides lithium

3) battery capacity deployed per year is growing exponentially

4) when you have large over supplies of energy you can pursue hydrogen. Green hydrogen should be at parity with grey hydrogen in less than a decade. Not cost competitive with just using fuels or batteries for utility scale, but slowly getting there.

5) commercial viability absolutely matters. Subsidizing an expensive source of energy rather than building more and more capacity for cheap energy is a bad strategy while using fossil fuels as a crutch in the interim is a bad strategy. Running a nuclear plant at low capacity craters its financial viability.

[usrbinbash]

> Mining rates are growing quickly.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-wor...

> there are competing materials for new battery tech besides lithium

And which of those are mass-production ready and are being deployed? Maybe one day, one of them will. Until such time, this argument is about the situation as-is.

> when you have large over supplies of energy you can pursue hydrogen.

The over supply would need to be truly enormeous, because Hydrogen is a cryogenic gas. It needs to be pressurized and cooled, both of which requires a constant expenditure of energy which is lost as usable power. It also carries [safety risks][1], and is [infamously hard to keep under control][1].

> commercial viability absolutely matters.

Long term, preventing climate change matters more. Alot more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

[2]: https://gizmodo.com/nasa-hydrogen-leaks-sls-rocket-space-shu...

[anon84873628]

Plus, the new materials for battery tech could be as simple as "molten sand". We've really barely scratched the surface on grid scale storage.

[throwaway5959]

When was the last nuclear plant built in California?

Edit: downvoting someone you disagree with is not cool. Go outside, touch some grass.

[krasin]

California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).

[throwaway5959]

I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.

[krasin]

> I’m sure they’d be fine with solar

Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time.

Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3])

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[bryanlarsen]

The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030:

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...

[kbenson]

"Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another.

There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather.

Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power.

Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.

[asadotzler]

latitude not altitude.

And Finland absolutely could provide energy to its entire population with renewables excluding nuclear. They haven't and that's their choice, but you cannot claim with any legitimacy that it's not possible because of latitude.

[krasin]

> latitude not altitude.

thanks!

> And Finland absolutely could provide energy to its entire population with renewables excluding nuclear. They haven't and that's their choice, but you cannot claim with any legitimacy that it's not possible because of latitude.

That was not my claim. I would appreciate if you re-read my comments in this thread.

[throwaway5959]

Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.

[krasin]

> Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.

Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.

[tbrownaw]

Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.