Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

    (arstechnica.com)
    425 points nixass | 12 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 1.258s | source | bottom
    Show context
    philipkglass ◴[02 Apr 21 18:07 UTC] No.26674051[source]▶
    I hope that the federal government can provide incentives to keep reactors running that would otherwise close prematurely.

    5.1 gigawatts of American reactors are expected to retire this year: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46436

    It's a shame that the US is retiring working reactors while still burning fossil fuels for electricity. Reactors are far safer and cleaner than fossil electric generation. It's mostly the low price of natural gas that is driving these early retirements. Low gas prices have also retired a lot of coal usage -- which is good! -- but we'd make more climate progress if those low prices didn't also threaten nuclear generation.

    Some states like New York already provided incentives to keep reactors running for climate reasons:

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534

    Federal policy could be more comprehensive.

    replies(6): >>26674195 #>>26675068 #>>26675523 #>>26675557 #>>26679016 #>>26681646 #
    1. notJim ◴[02 Apr 21 19:29 UTC] No.26675068[source]▶
    I couldn't agree more. Retiring reactors before a green replacement is available has been a total disaster for Germany. To be honest, I'm pretty agnostic as to what the replacement is, but at least keep them going until it's available.
    replies(3): >>26675238 #>>26675494 #>>26675596 #
    2. rjzzleep ◴[02 Apr 21 19:49 UTC] No.26675238[source]▶
    it's basically what happens when decisions are made only based on ratings to get you through the next 4 years, instead of long term strategy.
    3. legulere ◴[02 Apr 21 20:17 UTC] No.26675494[source]▶
    I would call it unwise, but there has been no disaster. Electricity production through fossil fuels went down, renewables reached 50% last year while Germany still has one of the most stable electricity network worldwide:

    https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...

    replies(2): >>26675799 #>>26677679 #
    4. jhayward ◴[02 Apr 21 20:27 UTC] No.26675596[source]▶
    > has been a total disaster for Germany.

    What do you define as 'a total disaster'? Coal fuel consumption is down enormously, supplanted by renewables and a tiny bit of gas generation growth.

    replies(1): >>26675768 #
    5. sir_bearington ◴[02 Apr 21 20:43 UTC] No.26675768[source]▶
    While non-hydroelectric renewables have gone up, fossil fuel usage remains largely flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...

    Germany's CO2 intensity of electricity isn't actually very good. It's worse than the UK, and 7 times more than France.

    replies(1): >>26675784 #
    6. jhayward ◴[02 Apr 21 20:45 UTC] No.26675784{3}[source]▶
    Your use of that graph is misleading. It's not a graph of CO2 emissions.
    replies(1): >>26675836 #
    7. effie ◴[02 Apr 21 20:47 UTC] No.26675799[source]▶
    50% of german electric energy production is from high availability sources (nuclear+fossil fuels) and Germany's network is connected to the continental network, so of course the network is stable. It will be hard to get these sources down and maintain that stability. Maybe it can be done with energy storage, but so far it is not built.
    replies(1): >>26676229 #
    8. sir_bearington ◴[02 Apr 21 20:50 UTC] No.26675836{4}[source]▶
    The above comment didn't say CO2 emissions, it said that coal use is "down enormously" with a "tiny bit of gas generation growth". The reality is that overall fossil fuel use remains largely the same, coal reductions were matched by natural gas increases.

    Likewise, CO2 reductions aren't very large, and is still above average for EU member states: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-i...

    9. legulere ◴[02 Apr 21 21:34 UTC] No.26676229{3}[source]▶
    Those fears have been discussed endlessly. Just look at the graph I posted to see the change in the last years that is still continuing.

    Availability has nothing to do with what you are talking about (it’s much higher for photovoltaics anyway). Out of the 49.5% non-renewables only gas which makes up 12.5 percent of electricity can really be used to follow demand. Coal and nuclear are too slow for that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant

    https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020...

    replies(1): >>26677261 #
    10. effie ◴[03 Apr 21 00:21 UTC] No.26677261{4}[source]▶
    By availability I meant fraction of time that it is available for power generation. This is closer to technical term "capacity factor", which is higher for nuclear energy than for PV energy, so my point stands.

    Modern nuclear plants can do load following and they do so in France and in Germany. So why is "nuclear too slow"?

    replies(1): >>26679040 #
    11. belorn ◴[03 Apr 21 01:33 UTC] No.26677679[source]▶
    Here in nearby Sweden we are currently giving subsidizes to oil and gas in order to act as "reserve" energy, ie stability. Those fossil fueled plants get paid first once just to keep the engines running, the fuel tanks full and employees ready, and then they get paid a second time if demand start to rise and energy is actually produced.

    I suspect Germany does the same thing, but it would be interesting to hear if my guess is correct.

    Sweden is also currently investing heavily in connecting power lines with nearby countries in order to increase the capacity to buy energy with countries that produce energy through fossil fuels when needed.

    12. imtringued ◴[03 Apr 21 07:39 UTC] No.26679040{5}[source]▶
    Total pollution is the only factor that matters. Intermittency is irrelevant for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and fighting climate change.

    Intermittency is mostly relevant for 100% zero carbon energy which is a goal that is incredibly far away. At least another 10 years before we even think about it and then another 10 years to do it.