Interestingly, expertise honed in vessels is part of what led to the Three Mile Island meltdown. I think what you say is on point, but also that they are two different animals.
"Big advocates’ of renewables have now ‘come to understand’ the limits of them.
October 25, 2021
Back in 2021, even activist and author Michael Shellenberger said many people who used to be "big advocates" of renewables have come to understand the limits of them.
"We now understand that we need nuclear power," Mr Shellenberger said. Mr Shellenberger said he was "absolutely" opposed to nuclear energy in the past. "I was raised to be anti-nuclear."
However, Mr Shellenberger said, "the truth is that we could produce all of our energy from nuclear right now. There's always a period of time where people need to get accustomed to the new technology. The main obstacle is really psychological - it's ideological, political obstacle - the existing technology is really quite good. We've been using it for over 60 years."
My hope is that the US will modernize and implement its nuclear power sources and fully integrate them into the power grid. While I'm as doubtful as the author about whether Trump can move that along, his proposal is at least a federal step in the right direction.
But it takes a lot to overcome American paranoia about nuclear power. My guess is we will have to watch Europe and China take the lead on the new and safer emerging technologies that should eclipse our reliance (such as it is) on tech that is over half a century old. But as those technologies prove themselves in the real world, and work out any problems that develop, eventually America will have to follow along. And maybe, in our US-centric way, we might view the rest of the world as our guinea pigs.
That's not the way I'd like it, but anything that gets us over ourselves will be just fine by me.
It is heartening to read that Europe and the US are making moves, however hesitant, to develop more nuclear power. Solar and wind are insufficient, alone, to achieve a net-zero-carbon energy mix, particularly as aggregate electricity demand continues to rise. Barring a revolutionary advance in energy storage technology, nuclear power will be essential as a source of non-intermittent, zero-carbon electricity.
But the authors are wrong about the reason: the issue is not that solar energy is low-inertia (though it is). Because of their intermittency, solar and wind need to be paired with battery storage, which provides the missing inertia. Batteries can react in microseconds to short-term changes in demand, soaking up excess production or discharging to provide a steady supply as needed. Coupled with sufficient battery storage, solar power provides more inertia to the system than that provided by the rotating mass of a turbine -- not less.
The real shortcoming of solar is seasonal. A cloud passing across an otherwise clear sky may drop solar output by 70% for a few minutes. It's nearly trivial for batteries to cope with that short fluctuation. The daily cycle is harder: solar panels produce nothing at night, so batteries need to store excess electricity during the day for use at night. A week of rain is harder still. Though we'll see how costs and efficiency of battery storage evolve, none of these situations seems a priori out of reach for solar plus batteries to handle.
Winter is a different story. Days get short, rainy weather (where I live) becomes much more common; elsewhere, solar panels may be blanketed with snow. Simultaneously, electricity demand for heat and light goes up. In California, with its solar-friendly climate, building sufficient battery storage to soak up summer's excess electricity and dole it out in sufficient quantity over the course of the winter is entirely infeasible (again, barring a revolutionary advance in storage technology). In a world of ants and grasshoppers, solar can't be the ant.
Of course, none of this means that deploying large-scale solar and wind generation is a bad idea. It just means that solar and wind can only be part of the zero-carbon future, not the whole story. How big a part? Time, technological progress, and markets will answer that question. It's also contingent on location: solar electricity will be a bigger part of the answer in Phoenix, where peak demand occurs on blazing summer afternoons, than in Buffalo, where frigid winter nights are peak demand time.
We install and run nuclear reactors inside moving vessels but yet somehow the public is convinced that stationary terrestrial nuclear is unsafe.
Interestingly, expertise honed in vessels is part of what led to the Three Mile Island meltdown. I think what you say is on point, but also that they are two different animals.
"Big advocates’ of renewables have now ‘come to understand’ the limits of them.
October 25, 2021
Back in 2021, even activist and author Michael Shellenberger said many people who used to be "big advocates" of renewables have come to understand the limits of them.
"We now understand that we need nuclear power," Mr Shellenberger said. Mr Shellenberger said he was "absolutely" opposed to nuclear energy in the past. "I was raised to be anti-nuclear."
However, Mr Shellenberger said, "the truth is that we could produce all of our energy from nuclear right now. There's always a period of time where people need to get accustomed to the new technology. The main obstacle is really psychological - it's ideological, political obstacle - the existing technology is really quite good. We've been using it for over 60 years."
Hallelujah, and Amen to that.
My hope is that the US will modernize and implement its nuclear power sources and fully integrate them into the power grid. While I'm as doubtful as the author about whether Trump can move that along, his proposal is at least a federal step in the right direction.
But it takes a lot to overcome American paranoia about nuclear power. My guess is we will have to watch Europe and China take the lead on the new and safer emerging technologies that should eclipse our reliance (such as it is) on tech that is over half a century old. But as those technologies prove themselves in the real world, and work out any problems that develop, eventually America will have to follow along. And maybe, in our US-centric way, we might view the rest of the world as our guinea pigs.
That's not the way I'd like it, but anything that gets us over ourselves will be just fine by me.
Another excellent article. Thank you.
It is heartening to read that Europe and the US are making moves, however hesitant, to develop more nuclear power. Solar and wind are insufficient, alone, to achieve a net-zero-carbon energy mix, particularly as aggregate electricity demand continues to rise. Barring a revolutionary advance in energy storage technology, nuclear power will be essential as a source of non-intermittent, zero-carbon electricity.
But the authors are wrong about the reason: the issue is not that solar energy is low-inertia (though it is). Because of their intermittency, solar and wind need to be paired with battery storage, which provides the missing inertia. Batteries can react in microseconds to short-term changes in demand, soaking up excess production or discharging to provide a steady supply as needed. Coupled with sufficient battery storage, solar power provides more inertia to the system than that provided by the rotating mass of a turbine -- not less.
The real shortcoming of solar is seasonal. A cloud passing across an otherwise clear sky may drop solar output by 70% for a few minutes. It's nearly trivial for batteries to cope with that short fluctuation. The daily cycle is harder: solar panels produce nothing at night, so batteries need to store excess electricity during the day for use at night. A week of rain is harder still. Though we'll see how costs and efficiency of battery storage evolve, none of these situations seems a priori out of reach for solar plus batteries to handle.
Winter is a different story. Days get short, rainy weather (where I live) becomes much more common; elsewhere, solar panels may be blanketed with snow. Simultaneously, electricity demand for heat and light goes up. In California, with its solar-friendly climate, building sufficient battery storage to soak up summer's excess electricity and dole it out in sufficient quantity over the course of the winter is entirely infeasible (again, barring a revolutionary advance in storage technology). In a world of ants and grasshoppers, solar can't be the ant.
Of course, none of this means that deploying large-scale solar and wind generation is a bad idea. It just means that solar and wind can only be part of the zero-carbon future, not the whole story. How big a part? Time, technological progress, and markets will answer that question. It's also contingent on location: solar electricity will be a bigger part of the answer in Phoenix, where peak demand occurs on blazing summer afternoons, than in Buffalo, where frigid winter nights are peak demand time.