They don't work well together. Nuclear needs to operate at as close to 100% uptime as possible, otherwise it isn't financially viable. What happens when it's very windy and sunny and renewables are creating more power than we need? You can't just run nuclear to cover the peaks in demand, it doesn't work that way.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I didn’t know they were exclusive. Thanks

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one -1 points 1 year ago

Ok but what’s the alternative? Gas peakers? Storage isn’t practical - even the biggest battery storage facilities are a smidge on pumped storage and have hardly any of that.

I agree nuclear needs to improve flexibility (with, say, sodium heat storage) but the fact that the technology needs to get better (with clear candidates for doing so) shouldn’t rule it out when all other options have worse implications.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear base load and renewables is actually one of the two viable concepts (the other is storage).

But electricity demand will massively increase: Most countries nowadays only cover about 20% of their primary energy by electricity. But all the oil and gas used in transport and industry needs to be converted to electricity (directly or indirectly). (On the other hand electricity is more efficient in a lot of cases, so it's not the full factor 5 in increase that will be needed. But still a lot.)

And not single country seems to be able to even start investing on the scale necessary to build the needed base load. ~30-35% is the minimum, but that's 30-35% of the future demand. Which is probably at least 2,5 times the demand of today. So basically any country that is not planning or already building enough nuclear capacities to cover at least 80% of todays electricity production purely on nuclear (which will be ~30% of the demand in 2-3 decades) is already failing. And pretending that that one (or a few) reactor(s) planned is more than symbolic is a lie.

As I said France comes close but only if they start being honest and build all the 14 planned new reactors. And if they can keep their aging fleet of existing reactors running long enough until those are build. (PS: The few lucky countries with a lot of hydro potential can of course cover some of that base load with hydro. But that's irrelevant for most other countries without the same geography.)

Why nobody is actually planning proper amounts while pretending to trust in nuclear power as a solution? That's easy: the cost. Even when we assume that the massive nuclear upbuild needed is not more expensive than the alternatively needed infrastructure and storage, the latter is an continues investment over decades. Nuclear comes with a massive upfront cost now to be ready in decades (maybe one if Europe suddenly rediscovers how to build them quickly, but I wouldn't bet on it).

And it even becomes worse. Most countries planning with nuclear are also lacking proper renewables although their own model requires them and massively so (65%-70% to complement the nuclear base load... multiplied with at least 2,5 for the future demand...).

That's the legacy of decades of nuclear lobbyism going for the perceived competition and trying to discredit renewables or nowadays telling us how storage is impossible on the required scale. At this point reacting to plans to build renewables with "oh, so you want to burn more fossil fuels and kill the planet?" is completely normal although also completely insane of course.

And now comes the best part: nuclear power doesn't work without the same storage they tell everyone isn't possible: Just look at France. They are massively overproducing in summer right now and still don't have enough electricity in the coldest weeks of winter and need imports. But now imagine a future where everyone is either running nuclear and renewables or even more renewables and storage. There will be no export market most of the year (because everyone has a surplus at the same time) making nuclear much more expensive. There also will be no one with a sizeable surplus in the coldest weeks of the year, which means you need even more reactors producing even more surplus over most of the year.

RTE (France' grid provider) did a extensive study in 2020 about electricity demand in 2050. That's where the minimal needed base load of about 35% comes from, also the announced 14 new reactors first announced less than a year later coincidently have the capacity to cover 35% of their projected demand in 2050. (Side note: They also compared their models to purely renewable ones... always funny to see how the guys working in that field and with nuclear are not the ones doubting the viability of a renewable model)

The gist of it... nuclear and renewables are economical viable compared to fully renewable models, even more than the minimum base load can even be better economically. But only because all their models were based on hydrogen production basically all year from excess electricity... used in industry, as long term storage or as the new way of exporting energy.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was informative. Was the takeaway- we’re screwed? Cause I kinda get the feeling energy can’t keep up with demand, and there isn’t an adequate way to store it.( batteries)

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is storage. Batteries can keep up and more importantly there are a lot of options that are better (in terms of costs and ressources) than the lithium-ion ones we here so much about. Because a stationary installation doesn't have the same requirements as a mobile device or car (although even there they already move to other materials). Cheap materials and longevity for example are more important than energy densitiy because no one cares if the building is 30% heavier (for a phone however that's important).

Also batteries are not the storage we usually talk about. They are more short-term and more used in balancing out short-term fluctuations (for example even pumped storage also uses batteries as a buffer because it makes no sense to start pumping big amounts of water when they are only needed to provide smaller loads right now). And for this reason the needed capacities are much smaller and heavily de-centralized, too.

What we primarily need when we talk about full renewables is long-term storage. The kind of storage you collect the overproduction of months in, to use it all in the 5-7 in a row once a year when neither solar nor wind produce proper amounts. And it's no concidence I mentioned hydrogen production as one part of France' future plans. Because that is storage. We will need green hydrogen to electrify a lot of industries and some transport. Maybe even green efuels (=putting even more electricity in to bind carbon to the hydrogen for a higher energy densities) for some kinds of air travel for example.

That's potential long term storage right there. Yes it isn't very efficient, but it doesn't need to be. You already need a constant supply for industries and having some buffer to smooth out production (that will be linked to renewable excess production) is already economically benefical. Making that buffer capacity bigger (so it can also double as storage for the small amounts of time renewables don't suffice) only costs the money you need to build it. And most of it doesn't need to be build but can be converted from existing natural gas storage.

So the takeaway is: Build renewables. Neither a nuclear plus renewable model nor a renewable plus storage model works without them. Then start building nuclear. Or storage. Or even a mix will do.

But the most important thing: do it now and massively so. Storage models need about 115-125% production (depending on how well you diversify renewables), nuclear models also need 65%+. Of the long term demand in 2+ decades... So there is exactly no country at any risk to build too many renewables right now. The 35% base load numbers basically show us that you can reach 65% renewables in your mix without problems, so all the talk about grid stability is bullshit. Again...You won't manage to build too much.

Also the most important part. Every single solar panel or wind turbine build today has a direct impact on co2-reduction. Which means you have more time to reach 100%.

That's the other problem with nuclear build times. Let's say every country manages to decide today to build the sufficient amount of nuclear base load and also manages to do the planning, construction and everything in 15 years (which would be impressive, when most need longer after all planning and location finding is done just for construction). Then they will still fail to meet the climate goals the agreed to as they can't afford today's co2-production for another 15 years. So again, they need to start a massive renewable upbuild just as a buffer to even reach the day when their reactors come online.

Oh, and of course renewable energy is cheap as fuck. So providing enough of it will automatically trigger changes in the way you use electricity. If there are enough times when electricity is basically free (most countries with higher amounts of renewables already have these a few hours a day) private companies will build storage without public investments, just because they can make money with it. Or industries using a lot will change their working pattern to need it when it's cheap. Or they will build their own batteries.

TL;DR: Build renewables! Now! Many! You can't do wrong here as it's not only the fastest way to reduce co2-output now but also a requirement no matter what your complementary plan (storage or nuclear) is.

Remember: 65% (nuclear) to 125% (renewables with sub-optimal diversification) are needed. In a future with at least 2,5 times today's electricity demand. So that's 162,5% of today's production at the very least, just in renewables before any base load. There is no excuse not to start today.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You are very knowledgeable concerning this. Please post more here and elsewhere to get the word out. We need people with knowledge to lead the change.