what does it mean that "the west tried" - was it a technical failure or was it that people didn't want it in their backyard? just because people hate something doesn't mean that they don't need it. children hate spinach.
There was talk of an ongoing nuclear renaissance in the early 2000s. [1]
American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14.
We went ahead and started construction on 7 reactors in Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hanhikivi to rekindle the industry. We didn't believe renewables would cut it.
The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction.
The rest are in different states of trouble with financing with only Hinkley Point C slowly moving forward.
In the meantime renewables went from barely existing to dominating new capacity (TWh) in the energy sector.
Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector.
The failure of nuclear power is that it is horrifically expensive and the timelines are insane compared to the competition.
Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive.
Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change.
When their plans, like in Australia, get presented they don’t care the slightest about nuclear power and it is only a method to prolong the life of the coal and gas assets.
> American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14.
Lots of projects get announced, they aren't meant to be promises.
> The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction.
So there are three operational reactors and another one almost ready. I'm surprised we got that after Fukushima.
> Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector.
So we should not invest in anything else?
> Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive.
This is a terrible analogy.
> Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change.
People who have been advocating for more nuclear power should stop because it is a conservative issue now?
Which would have moved forward towards completion if the economic calculus made sense.
We should of course continue with basic research. But, without some incredible breakthrough nuclear power will only serve climate change deniers agenda in delaying the renewable buildout.
This is what you sign up for when proposing investing in nuclear power in 2024:
> The opposition last week released modelling of its “coal-to-nuclear” plan that would slow the rollout of renewable energy and batteries and instead rely on more fossil fuel generation until a nuclear industry could be developed, mostly after 2040.
in other words, it's too late to build nuclear, let's bury our heads in the sand and hope somehow we have enough renewable in 20 years and we're not still using the coal/gas.
The bury our heads in the sand part seems to be you projecting.
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources.
> However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, *with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour*.
> For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
It may cost more, but it is constant generation, and we should invest in as many carbon neutral alternatives as possible that are feasible. The fact that you have a political opposition to it because of conservative opportunists using it for their own agenda is irrelevant.
That is a down right hostile environment for nuclear power which relies on being able to output at 100% 24/7 all year around to only be horrifically expensive.
In the land of infinite resources and infinite time "all of the above" is a viable answer. In the real world we neither have infinite resources nor infinite time to fix climate change.
Lets focus our limited resources on what works and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing truly hard areas like aviation, construction, shipping and agriculture.
'Plenty of places' is not all places and you want to completely count out a significant energy generating ability because you are annoyed that it doesn't agree with your politics. If it isn't feasible then they won't build it -- by going around and advocating against it you are doing the same thing that happened in the 70s and 80s -- removing a perfectly valid option for energy that we need and will otherwise be fulfilled in any other way if not provided -- almost always with fossil fuels. If you can guarantee every place for all time will be fine with renewables, I'd like to see it, otherwise, why not step back and let engineers and scientists evaluate instead of grandstanding against an option?
What places aren’t covered by the spectrum with Denmark for higher latitudes and Australia for the near the equator?
I’m advocating against wasting public money on nuclear power pretending it is a solution to climate change.
Have at it with your own money.
I already provided you with the scientists and engineers, but you seem to have completely disregarded them because they did not align with what you wanted.
I can do it again:
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources.
> However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, *with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour*.
> For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
I agreed that it costs more and read the study you linked. You are having a hard time accepting that some people might have a different opinion than you and are taking it like they are being obstinate. Sorry it costs more, but I don't think we need to be uniformly opposed to a viable option due to cost.
I'm not making this political, I said that the politics are irrelevant. I am not advocating for more nuclear -- I am advocating keeping options on the table regardless of politics or cost, because the issue is important to the progress of our species and condensing things down by referencing single studies and talking points is short-sighted -- we have been down that road, it didn't work, let's not bind our hands needlessly.
in practice, 20 years of walking away from nuclear meant that Germany brought coal-fired stations back last year. I'm sure renewables will stop it happening again in 20 years _this time_.
Germany brought a few coal plants out mothball to prevent the collapse of the French grid when half the French nuclear fleet was off line at the height of the energy crisis.
Which then were promptly mothballed again when the French got their nuclear power under control.
This is not something you can answer clearly, no one can.
I personally would say since renewables (there are many different types of renewable energy sources btw) are so much cheaper and easier to build they are more consistent.
France for example has really shitty nuclear plants that have been falling apart since the 90s - they are not reliable and fixing them is not feasible
It did not deliver. It is time to leave nuclear power to the past just like we have done with the steam engine.
It had its heyday but better cheaper technology replaced it.