←back to thread

425 points nixass | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.83s | source
Show context
philipkglass ◴[] 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 #
notJim ◴[] 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 #
legulere ◴[] 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 #
effie ◴[] 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 #
1. legulere ◴[] No.26676229[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 #
2. effie ◴[] No.26677261[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 #
3. imtringued ◴[] No.26679040[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.