You provide excellent examples of the bogosity of the arguments. Let me demolish them in turn.
1) System cost
Sure, it's high. That's because we spend huge amounts of money on energy. ANY system to replace fossil fuels will be expensive, in the trillions of dollars.
But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables.
2) Recycling
At worst, we can bury the stuff. Recycling it is not necessary. After all, the amount of material is small compared to everything else we do in society, and it's not some special kind of waste (like high level nuclear waste) that requires some particularly unique handling.
3) Lithium and cobalt
Lithium is abundant. If you hadn't been paying attention, the price has been crashing, as it pretty much always does after a price spike of a mineral resource, when the price spike encourages investment to increase the amount available. As for cobalt: probably the same is true, but why do you think cobalt is needed?
4) poison the environment
This is just emotional bullshit. No, renewables would not "poison the environment". You beclown yourself with this nonsense.
5) absurdly high energy cost
As opposed to those still burning fossil fuels where they are foisting off the cost of the externalities on others? Ignoring those external costs doesn't make them go away.
In any case, the place that's normally pointed to is Germany, where they made a large investment in renewables from 2009-2012. Solar was much more expensive then, and they are still paying that down. But the costs of renewables crash with time, so pointing to past expenditures is grossly misleading. Going forward renewables will be much cheaper. That's why we're seeing so much investment in them now globally.
One can tell the intellectual barrenness of the pro-nuclear position when you have to resort to this sort of deplorable nonsense.
Indeed you have to look at the figures, no amount of wordage without computation will get you a true answer, still calling someone or something deplorable is, I am sorry, a dog-whistle.
So to clear the air I propose you look at this substantive set of answers:
> But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables.
I agree that the nuclear power stations are more expensive per kW of generation capacity. But that does not mean that the overall system must be more expensive (fallacy of composition?). It would depend on the quality of the intermittent resources, their location, demand profiles, cost to build, cost of transmission and storage and so on.
nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper. It's just harder to scale
If the waste is your concern - nuclear is better. And no, you can't just bury renewable waste, it too contains forever toxic materials that can be dispersed in soil and water. Amount of mined stuff- nuclear is better, amount of land used- nuclear is better
No matter how you turn it, renewables were and will be more expensive for germany https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-sprea...
it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/
Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment
Last but not least... there is no running project.
Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else.
As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me.
> why they assume 4h storage?
AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G).
> What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low?
AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes.
> overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time
Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...).
> if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies
> AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs
> AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation
> if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies
This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less
No, your "Advanced Nuclear - Pathways to Commercial Liftoff" plays the usual "we benefit from failures because we learn" card, and concludes with promises "The next AP1000s would also realize substantial cost reductions". This is not IMHO solid, especially given well-known pertinent experience (about gaining from experience!), such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
V2G seems solid to me and to most experts (even France seriously studies it!).
based on the fact unit 4 proved there's positive learning curve (30% faster & cheaper than unit 3) they extrapolated this so it seems pretty normal, much more believable than a continental scale grid that'll not need much overcapacity and storage, including because of v2g, that's a pipedream of a solution.
Just think of dunkelflaute that'll affect a lot of northern countries, think how much overcapacity the other members will need to have to cover it.
Unit 4 proved that work units in a given project, sharing the same lapse of time and space, can benefit.
Extrapolating it to a whole set of projects is another matter (see the referenced study).
Yeah, vastly overstated... at this point you're not serious dude.
I'm also very aware of european grid, but I guess you didn't read the part that you still need huge overcapacity
You didn't source this. This vastly depends on many parameters. Moreover as renewables machines are cheap, recyclable, and can be installed in unused places (or even protect them, as offshore wind does for oceans) you have yet to show which challenge this 'huge overcapacity' stems.
I strongly wish we had more comments like the one you're responding to. I find most comments here to be obnoxiously polite and I wish more ignorant opinions were publicly demolished as they should be, rather than continue to spread misinformation because it's the polite thing to do.
Well, I may be ignorant, but the reality of the my relatives energy bill in Germany and the UK tends to agree with my ignorance. Maybe you are just smart enough to regurgitate the propaganda, but not enough to think for yourself.
It's more the fact that you're willfully ignorant which makes you annoying. Numerous people have already explained to you why you're wrong and you just keep repeating yourself. You're a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
1) it's not the money, it's the EROEI
2) at scale, panels recycling does become a very real issue
3) It's not the abundance, it's the mine-able ore at high enough concentration that matters
4) solar panels, read the docs please
5) again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3, early oil was in the hundreds, nuclear is at around 50
After having gotten 0/5 in terms of correctness on actual facts, maybe tone down the sneer?
EROEI of renewables is fine, some well-debunked garbage studies not withstanding.
No, at scale recycling doesn't become a "real issue" in the sense of being a showstopper. It would be nice if it could save some money (recover aluminum frames, say) but it's only a "nice to have".
"High enough concentration" is dependent on technology. Like other mineral resources, one can expect lithium extraction technology to keep ahead of demand. The doom and gloomers on this sort of thing are never right. Stationary storage doesn't even require lithium; there's a large variety of storage technologies that could be used instead (including some like pumped thermal that use nothing more than cheap materials like common steel.)
> solar panels, read the docs please
Empty nonsense. Solar panels are not toxic. Please stop making things up.
> again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3
_-_renewable_energy.svg){kind=link}
1) System cost
Sure, it's high. That's because we spend huge amounts of money on energy. ANY system to replace fossil fuels will be expensive, in the trillions of dollars.
But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables.
2) Recycling
At worst, we can bury the stuff. Recycling it is not necessary. After all, the amount of material is small compared to everything else we do in society, and it's not some special kind of waste (like high level nuclear waste) that requires some particularly unique handling.
3) Lithium and cobalt
Lithium is abundant. If you hadn't been paying attention, the price has been crashing, as it pretty much always does after a price spike of a mineral resource, when the price spike encourages investment to increase the amount available. As for cobalt: probably the same is true, but why do you think cobalt is needed?
4) poison the environment
This is just emotional bullshit. No, renewables would not "poison the environment". You beclown yourself with this nonsense.
5) absurdly high energy cost
As opposed to those still burning fossil fuels where they are foisting off the cost of the externalities on others? Ignoring those external costs doesn't make them go away.
In any case, the place that's normally pointed to is Germany, where they made a large investment in renewables from 2009-2012. Solar was much more expensive then, and they are still paying that down. But the costs of renewables crash with time, so pointing to past expenditures is grossly misleading. Going forward renewables will be much cheaper. That's why we're seeing so much investment in them now globally.
One can tell the intellectual barrenness of the pro-nuclear position when you have to resort to this sort of deplorable nonsense.