My tone is because this is a simple predatory delay strategy.
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I’ll decarbonize tomorrow.
Instead of paying to buy wind and solar plants, which can go up today they are signing a meaningless agreement for the future.
A PPA isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if the seller can’t produce electricity at the agreed upon price by the date required.
Take Three Mile Island. It was closed in 2019 since it was uneconomical to run. Since then renewables have continued getting substantially cheaper, while the reactor has been in the process of decommissioning.
Instead of spending money on building wind and solar, Microsoft saw how well Vogtle went and decided that another first of it’s kind nuclear project is the best way to make it appear like they’re doing something.
The logic is pretty straightforward I’m not sure what your complaint is. They don’t need the power now, but they calculate that they’d need much more power in the future than non nuclear ways of power generation would be able to give them in the same timeframe.
The US is already adding record amount of solar and wind power to replace coal and natural gas plants. What makes you believe Microsoft can just buy more renewable energies? Did you privy to the terms and conditions of the PPA?
The alternative to Three Miles Island restart would be to add natural gas plants, or to buy renewable energy at higher price. I’m sure they have plan B.
I've been told my entire life that it's too late for nuclear, we should have been building them 20 years ago.
I think now's fine, even if it takes time. these companies already buy a ton of power from renewable sources, and it's good to diversify - nuclear is a good backup to have.
what does it mean that "the west tried" - was it a technical failure or was it that people didn't want it in their backyard? just because people hate something doesn't mean that they don't need it. children hate spinach.
There was talk of an ongoing nuclear renaissance in the early 2000s. [1]
American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14.
We went ahead and started construction on 7 reactors in Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hanhikivi to rekindle the industry. We didn't believe renewables would cut it.
The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction.
The rest are in different states of trouble with financing with only Hinkley Point C slowly moving forward.
In the meantime renewables went from barely existing to dominating new capacity (TWh) in the energy sector.
Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector.
The failure of nuclear power is that it is horrifically expensive and the timelines are insane compared to the competition.
Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive.
Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change.
When their plans, like in Australia, get presented they don’t care the slightest about nuclear power and it is only a method to prolong the life of the coal and gas assets.
> American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14.
Lots of projects get announced, they aren't meant to be promises.
> The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction.
So there are three operational reactors and another one almost ready. I'm surprised we got that after Fukushima.
> Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector.
So we should not invest in anything else?
> Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive.
This is a terrible analogy.
> Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change.
People who have been advocating for more nuclear power should stop because it is a conservative issue now?
Which would have moved forward towards completion if the economic calculus made sense.
We should of course continue with basic research. But, without some incredible breakthrough nuclear power will only serve climate change deniers agenda in delaying the renewable buildout.
This is what you sign up for when proposing investing in nuclear power in 2024:
> The opposition last week released modelling of its “coal-to-nuclear” plan that would slow the rollout of renewable energy and batteries and instead rely on more fossil fuel generation until a nuclear industry could be developed, mostly after 2040.
in other words, it's too late to build nuclear, let's bury our heads in the sand and hope somehow we have enough renewable in 20 years and we're not still using the coal/gas.
The bury our heads in the sand part seems to be you projecting.
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources.
> However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, *with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour*.
> For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
It may cost more, but it is constant generation, and we should invest in as many carbon neutral alternatives as possible that are feasible. The fact that you have a political opposition to it because of conservative opportunists using it for their own agenda is irrelevant.
That is a down right hostile environment for nuclear power which relies on being able to output at 100% 24/7 all year around to only be horrifically expensive.
In the land of infinite resources and infinite time "all of the above" is a viable answer. In the real world we neither have infinite resources nor infinite time to fix climate change.
Lets focus our limited resources on what works and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing truly hard areas like aviation, construction, shipping and agriculture.
'Plenty of places' is not all places and you want to completely count out a significant energy generating ability because you are annoyed that it doesn't agree with your politics. If it isn't feasible then they won't build it -- by going around and advocating against it you are doing the same thing that happened in the 70s and 80s -- removing a perfectly valid option for energy that we need and will otherwise be fulfilled in any other way if not provided -- almost always with fossil fuels. If you can guarantee every place for all time will be fine with renewables, I'd like to see it, otherwise, why not step back and let engineers and scientists evaluate instead of grandstanding against an option?
What places aren’t covered by the spectrum with Denmark for higher latitudes and Australia for the near the equator?
I’m advocating against wasting public money on nuclear power pretending it is a solution to climate change.
Have at it with your own money.
I already provided you with the scientists and engineers, but you seem to have completely disregarded them because they did not align with what you wanted.
I can do it again:
The research disagrees with you. Whenever new built nuclear power is included in the analysis the results becomes prohibitively expensive.
> Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources.
> However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, *with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour*.
> For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
I agreed that it costs more and read the study you linked. You are having a hard time accepting that some people might have a different opinion than you and are taking it like they are being obstinate. Sorry it costs more, but I don't think we need to be uniformly opposed to a viable option due to cost.
I'm not making this political, I said that the politics are irrelevant. I am not advocating for more nuclear -- I am advocating keeping options on the table regardless of politics or cost, because the issue is important to the progress of our species and condensing things down by referencing single studies and talking points is short-sighted -- we have been down that road, it didn't work, let's not bind our hands needlessly.
in practice, 20 years of walking away from nuclear meant that Germany brought coal-fired stations back last year. I'm sure renewables will stop it happening again in 20 years _this time_.
Germany brought a few coal plants out mothball to prevent the collapse of the French grid when half the French nuclear fleet was off line at the height of the energy crisis.
Which then were promptly mothballed again when the French got their nuclear power under control.
This is not something you can answer clearly, no one can.
I personally would say since renewables (there are many different types of renewable energy sources btw) are so much cheaper and easier to build they are more consistent.
France for example has really shitty nuclear plants that have been falling apart since the 90s - they are not reliable and fixing them is not feasible
Have you considered googling and checking your assumptions? May help clear up the cynical misunderstandings you appear to have.
If you had, you would’ve read that both Microsoft and Google invest heavily into wind and solar, and that Google is the largest corporate purchaser of renewables in the world. I’m not advocating for these companies, just trying to show that tech is one of the few industries that does actually care and invest into clean energy.
> Have you considered googling and checking your assumptions? May help clear up the cynical misunderstandings you appear to have.
I don't have any such misunderstanding. Perhaps consider seeing my original comment which links to an article describing Google building out solar and wind farms for its data centres.
My cynicism, which I argue is well founded, is based around tech companies signing such agreements with nuclear companies, especially when it involves doings things that have never been done before (restarting reactors and building economical SMRs, see Nuscale...).
All these agreements are likely to amount to nothing more than positive PR, greenwashing, or predatory delay. Yes, they also build out solar and wind, but their nuclear PPAs are given equal standing with projects which actually are likely to be built; so instead of having to build more solar and wind today for more real money, they can promise to buy nuclear tomorrow for no cost today.
Not one of your comments amidst this sprawling thread has a single positive fact in it. You’re blindly arguing “nuclear bad” and claiming that nuclear PPAs amount to nothing based on zero evidence? The ones we’re all discussing are the first of their kind…
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I’ll decarbonize tomorrow.
Instead of paying to buy wind and solar plants, which can go up today they are signing a meaningless agreement for the future.
A PPA isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if the seller can’t produce electricity at the agreed upon price by the date required.
Take Three Mile Island. It was closed in 2019 since it was uneconomical to run. Since then renewables have continued getting substantially cheaper, while the reactor has been in the process of decommissioning.
Instead of spending money on building wind and solar, Microsoft saw how well Vogtle went and decided that another first of it’s kind nuclear project is the best way to make it appear like they’re doing something.