Except that it wasn’t according to people actually invested in researching energy matters.
The strategic mistake was and still is, when her party throttles solar and wind in favor for fossils (on a national level) or when they hinder transitioning to EVs.
They’re sabotaging decentralization and renewables wherever possible and make up stories about sunsetted (nuclear) or future (fusion) technologies.
I’d say both are mistakes. Nuclear has a long-term implementation process due to how long it takes to build. Of course solar and wind (and other clean technologies that we’re not even aware of yet) will be the future but there are times where those technologies fall short (cloudy day, no wind). That’s where nuclear could be a base-line option to help us until we find a permanent solution. I know it comes with it’s own challenges but it’s still infinitely cleaner than coal or anything like that.
Of course fusion looks really promising but that technology still needs a lot of time in the oven before it will be usable on a large scale. Nuclear has been proven to work.
In electricity generation, it typically can’t be throttled reasonably in a way that allows quick reaction to changing demand. Most reactors’ power output is regulated by changing the chemistry of the coolant, which can only be done gradually, Using quicker control rods for everyday power adjustment rather than only for shutdown and startup, is avoided to avoid uneven, and therefore inefficient fuel burn. While it could be done, it would make nuclear power even more uneconomical than it already is by forcing more frequent shutdowns for fuel changes.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the other options are better. I’m just saying that nuclear can be a good temporary step in between to buy us time to perform the complete transition. And I get what you’re saying about hydrogen but with the issues surrounding drinking water I don’t know if we should really lean on that too much.
The core difference here is: if we speed things up we can increase wind and solar and battery storage in the blink of an eye. Take a look at China’s new capacity.
Nuclear not so much.
Combined with the follow up questions of end storage or even getting the cheap uranium (Russia) there is no real reason to debate.
It’s hardly viable as a temporary step when the time to bring a new one online is 20 years. The economics are already bad today and have been trending to be worse every year, while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.
The time for transitionary measures has passed. Renewables and batteries are here today. All we need to do is build it.
New reactors take decades to build. We need to have energy autonomy and move towards net 0 now. We can’t wait for shiny new reactors, which will be ready in 2050, if we start planning now.
Fusion reactors have been constantly 30 years away for deacades.
All nuclear power programmes are really just a reserve of know-how, equipment and manpower to maintain the capability of keeping or developing a nuclear weapons programme. The electricity generation does work, but it really is more of a fig leaf to make the massive expenses and the inherent risks of running nuclear reactors more palatable to the general public. Of course having a relatively weather independent baseline electricity generation capability is a good thing, too, but as all thermal power stations, nuclear power stations aren’t completely weather independent either, as they do rely on large quantities of water for cooling.
Except that it wasn’t according to people actually invested in researching energy matters.
The strategic mistake was and still is, when her party throttles solar and wind in favor for fossils (on a national level) or when they hinder transitioning to EVs.
They’re sabotaging decentralization and renewables wherever possible and make up stories about sunsetted (nuclear) or future (fusion) technologies.
And sleeping on battery technology.
I’d say both are mistakes. Nuclear has a long-term implementation process due to how long it takes to build. Of course solar and wind (and other clean technologies that we’re not even aware of yet) will be the future but there are times where those technologies fall short (cloudy day, no wind). That’s where nuclear could be a base-line option to help us until we find a permanent solution. I know it comes with it’s own challenges but it’s still infinitely cleaner than coal or anything like that.
Of course fusion looks really promising but that technology still needs a lot of time in the oven before it will be usable on a large scale. Nuclear has been proven to work.
Except that nuclear cannot be throttled and is no base line option.
Wind, solar, batteries and gas play well together in central Europe. Other countries have other resources, like water.
In addition hydrogen is complementary for heavy industries and can be produced when all batteries are filled up.
Nuclear can be throttled, we do it all the time.
In electricity generation, it typically can’t be throttled reasonably in a way that allows quick reaction to changing demand. Most reactors’ power output is regulated by changing the chemistry of the coolant, which can only be done gradually, Using quicker control rods for everyday power adjustment rather than only for shutdown and startup, is avoided to avoid uneven, and therefore inefficient fuel burn. While it could be done, it would make nuclear power even more uneconomical than it already is by forcing more frequent shutdowns for fuel changes.
Nuclear load following is routinely done in France. You can see more details here: https://www.nice-future.org/docs/nicefuturelibraries/default-document-library/france.pdf
Like solar, batteries can compensate for the difference between supply and demand.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the other options are better. I’m just saying that nuclear can be a good temporary step in between to buy us time to perform the complete transition. And I get what you’re saying about hydrogen but with the issues surrounding drinking water I don’t know if we should really lean on that too much.
The core difference here is: if we speed things up we can increase wind and solar and battery storage in the blink of an eye. Take a look at China’s new capacity.
Nuclear not so much. Combined with the follow up questions of end storage or even getting the cheap uranium (Russia) there is no real reason to debate.
It’s hardly viable as a temporary step when the time to bring a new one online is 20 years. The economics are already bad today and have been trending to be worse every year, while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.
The time for transitionary measures has passed. Renewables and batteries are here today. All we need to do is build it.
New reactors take decades to build. We need to have energy autonomy and move towards net 0 now. We can’t wait for shiny new reactors, which will be ready in 2050, if we start planning now.
Fusion reactors have been constantly 30 years away for deacades.
All nuclear power programmes are really just a reserve of know-how, equipment and manpower to maintain the capability of keeping or developing a nuclear weapons programme. The electricity generation does work, but it really is more of a fig leaf to make the massive expenses and the inherent risks of running nuclear reactors more palatable to the general public. Of course having a relatively weather independent baseline electricity generation capability is a good thing, too, but as all thermal power stations, nuclear power stations aren’t completely weather independent either, as they do rely on large quantities of water for cooling.