With the ever-ongoing ‘progress’ of the proposed UK nuclear power plants, I wonder if this is the best course of action (not just in the UK, but across other nations also)?
My understanding is the best answer is ‘all of the above.’ Nuclear is big and expensive, and just as expensive to expand, and has ongoing input costs like skilled staff, water, fuel, etc. but produces very steady, controllable power, and can do so for decades in a well designed and maintained system. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are very easily scaled down to smaller budgets, but generate intermittent power. It can be very useful to have the nuclear as a backup for moments of high demand and low solar/wind output, but very efficient to mostly use renewables because they don’t have much of an ongoing input cost.
This is a good answer.
Nuclear for the base load that can be ramped up/down as needed, and using renewables like wind/solar/hydro as much as possible.
In my country it’s mostly hydro, which is fantastic, but would be even better if we had nuclear as a base load solution and hydro to catch the peaks and for export.
Sadly most people fear nuclear here, so it won’t happen soon.Well, don’t forget that wind and solar also use battery systems, not that I am arguing with you at all. I work for a solar power company, and it is really rare that we aren’t contributing to the grid.
When we aren’t, it is because a deer decided to chew up a cable, honest to god. We put up fences: not to keep humans out, but deer.
Seriously, we have a site where the gate is “locked” with a 5’ ethernet cable that has a burnt end. Recycle reuse!
But yes, nuclear is needed as the failsafe.
Hey, I’m in the biz. “Either or” isn’t a thing. We need a completely diversified grid. Mostly nuclear would be ideal with a big chunk coming from solar/wind/hydro. Even fossil fuels have a place in certain applications.
May I ask what you do if you don’t mind me asking?
Mechanical engineer on the operations side of a large Co-Generation power plant. Partially qualified to operate in a nuke plant too, they just don’t exist in my area.
Interesting. What kind of energy sources does your co-generation use? Part renewables, part fossil fuels I presume?
No, all natural gas with number 2 oil (diesel) as a backup. The co part comes from the fact the Brayton and Rankine cycles are working together. The former being how a gas turbine works and the latter being how a steam system works. I can go into more depth but it’s boring. I like renewables, just not as a blanket one size fits all solution. People tend to form an oppinion about this kind of thing based on vibes not reality, experience or math. I’ve worked at hydro plants before and like I said am mostly qualified legally to work in nuclear.
Being legally qualified to operate a nuclear reactor is mind-boggling! Unfortunately it’s not as magnificent as being a certified forklift operator (not me).
Ah, fair enough.
Both are needed for a healthy power structure.
Wind, solar even with batteries have low innertia (actually no innertia at all by themselves). If you want to resist turbulences on the power network without free innertia resistance by turbines (nuclear, gas, hydro), you need expensive equipment to generate that innertia other ways, and it can get quite expensive.
Hydro would be great but it’s highly seasonal.
Hydro would be great but it’s highly seasonal.
how is hydro seasonal? Even coldest Quebec uses hydro year around.
The amount of flow you get in a river is dependent on rain/snowpack?
https://enerknol.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/EIA_pulse_1.jpg
Example of California hydro generation
I would say that the good answer is “mox” (not sure of its english name, but it is likely similar. Used uranium is extremly dangerous for a very long time (millions of years). Yet it could be recycled and used again, and the result would be extremly dangerous for about 500 years (which is still far too much, but less crazily impossible to manage).
We already have enough used uranium to cover the next 200 years of needs, at least… And so it would be a lesser harm for future generation if we use mox than new uranium…
(But the true answer is we need new bombs, so new uranium…)
So the planet’s been using solar and wind for millions of years and it seems to have worked okay.
Yeah, but demand has ramped up, and it seems that wind/solar is no longer able to keep up, unless I’m missing something
I barely see wind and solar adoption. Most roofs don’t have solar yet. Most fences aren’t solar. Terrestrial Wind has better adoption on some scales but still largely untaped as with coastale wind.
Wind & solar for sure. Nuclear fission is great right now, but fissile material is a finite resource. It will, like oil, eventually become too expensive to extract.
and watch what China will do, they will invest in uranium mining and monopolize it and idiot west will just watch them do this, again.
wind and solar. hydro is environmentally unfriendly but renewable. nuclear is not pratical long term, or in the short term, since it needs to build out an expensive nuclear plant, plus all the regulatory approval you need to get through, can easily take 10 years at the minimum and also there significant resistance to nuclear power plants being built in many states, plus all the need to hire expensive technicins, scientists to maintain a plant. solar, wind is much cheaper and faster to set up. Most govt is are totally resisting to fast track it. because Oil money is in politicians pockets.
our tech is not even close for things like fusion or even geothermal that is in alot of fantasy scifi genre right now.
Nuclear was probably the best choice in the 1970’s; France made the best choice. But we’ve seen over and over again the problems are getting worse rather than better. Paperwork and process ever more unwieldy. Construction taking longer and longer. Radioactive waste building up with no permanent disposal. By far the highest cost power generation, and the difference is getting wider.
Much of the posts about how great it will be this time is just astroturfing by those trying to profit. No, “small modular reactors”, didn’t solve the cost, construction, or process issues, but only raised the cost of generation. No, thorium isn’t the silver bullet and really doesn’t exist yet.
I have lots of love for CANDU reactors. Lived by a few of them just outside of Toronto for a bit.
They do have the big advantage of having all waste handled on site vs the hazardous disposal of solar panels and wind turbine fiberglass every couple decades plus the ability to start up a failed grid. Big downside is the slow build process and the long downtime during refurbishment if you only have one reactor on site.
Solar also isn’t great up here with the winters killing solar production half the year when we require more power for heating but it is fabulous for balcony and roof solar installations.
Wind is only viable at scale but otherwise a pretty great source of power in windy areas.
Solar and wind also aren’t able to start a grid that as failed although investing in battery storage (chemical or gravity based) could fix this.
Hydro power would be perfect if it didn’t require the flooding of a huge area but otherwise it is a great source of constant power that can often be used to kickstart a grid. It is also cheap power if you have the rivers for it.
If tidal power wasn’t so incredibly harsh on equipment it could have been a fantastic power source as well but if Nova Scotia/NB can’t make it work then it probably isn’t worth doing anywhere else.
I don’t know much about geothermal but I assume it is pretty great if you’re somewhere geologically active. It does seem awfully similar to fracking for natural gas when getting built so idk the environnement impacts of that.
Ideally you’d get the bulk of your power from solar, wind and small scale hydro alongside battery storage and then have nuclear plants available to pick up the slack when one of these isn’t running and during peak use times.
That gravity batteries are so simple it’s hilarious: pump water up hill into a tank and it generates electricity on its way back down.
Just in case anyone thinks this is hyperadvanced technology…
sure, it’s just that simple. It’s not efficient and pumps wear and need maintenance.
I think wikipedia gave water pump gravity battery a 60-80 percent efficiency rating, and also said that they can even lose energy. But so what, there’s always going to be peaks and troughs in renewable energy production, still a good idea to put the excess to use somewhere.
Nuclear has a problem. Right now, there is an estimated 90 years of potential uranium supply, which will be cut in half when Chinese reactors get on line. Uranium is not abundant.
And don’t flame me with thorium bullshit or uranium from seawater bullshit. Science fiction.
It is not science fiction, you can get uranium from seawater today. It costs 2 to 4 times more than land mining today. The fact is that uranium is a small part of the cost of energy for nuclear so that translates in 5% to 10% more cost on the price of energy.
This without fast breeder reactor that reuse uranium from other reactors. And those exists today (Russia bn-600 and bn-800 for example)
We have 90 years to solve a problem we solved already today. This is not an issue at all.
Also nuclear waste
Not an issue
I agree we will just keep it at your house
Yum
It seems like battery+solar is the cheapest worldwide as of recently.
I am not familiar with UK conditions. Scandinavian winters remain a problem for solar.
The UK has a great capacity for wind power, and the number of offshore wind farms is increasing
Its to bad we did not go nuclear as much as possible before the millenium. Some blame protestors but I blame a lack of standardization. I think france basically showed how it should be done. Given that Im glad my state has a lot of nuclear power now. However wind and solar are just plain old faster to build out and utilize asap and storage is not the issue it was yester years. Thed multi decade length of a standard nuclear plant makes them kinda a no go and we never really solved waste storage decently. Now maybe the mini reactors or such may make sense. By that I mean nuclear is not going away I think we will just use it differently.
For fuck’s sake! It’s both, you can’t rely on a single one.
Guess which one it is being used and will be used for decades to come while everyone is distracted arguing which one is better?Radioactive nuclear waste
It depends on your definition of “long term”. If we’re talking centuries, millenia, then wind and solar seems the clear winner with current and predicted available technology for the simple fact that they produce no waste.
Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste. Currently, our best/only plan to dispose of that waste is to bury it in a hole and hope nobody ever finds it or a natural disaster ever disturbs it.
Wind and solar… don’t. So, barring some unforeseen technological breakthrough that allows us to reuse or recycle nuclear waste, probably wind and solar.
