One thing that infuriates me about SMRs is how inferior they are to the best on-paper ideas addressing the same problem. If you're spending billions on something that will probably never happen, why not make it something good? There's a geothermal company which uses MASERs (like lasers, but with microwaves instead of light) to drill incredibly deep holes. At a certain depth, everywhere on earth has access to viable geothermal every. Sodium batteries are another idea I really like - heavier than lithium but much cheaper, for all the applications where weight doesn't matter. (There's a good podcast called What's Your Problem which talks to founders or senior staff in these sort of start ups.)
Instead, we're stuck with carbon capture and nuclear. Obviously it's because the fossil fuel lobby wants bad ideas which will keep them in business if they succeed, not genuinely transformative innovations, but I still find it infuriating.
I don't quite see why the fossil fuel industry likes nuclear. I ascribe the popularity of nuclear construction to masculinism--it's big and dangerous: hence manly enough to appeal to little boys of all ages. (I distinguish nuclear construction from nuclear operations--I support running installed nuclear plants as long as they remain safe enough to operate.)
The reason the fossil fuel industry likes nuclear is because they know it's a pipe dream. While everybody is distracted with the future possibility of nukes, they can keep selling coal for as long as possible. It's also why they love CCS.
It is the paper reactors they like; I am not aware any pivot on their part to actually investing heavily in such nuclear. And it isn't promotion of nuclear to fix emissions, it is nuclear to 'save economies' from renewable energy. Even the insincerity of it is feature more than flaw - a backhanded assurance to climate science deniers that the intention is not to displace fossil fuels
I think high confidence nuclear will never be cost competitive with their fossil fuels and high confidence it cannot scale up sufficiently or fast enough to have any real impact on their business for the next few decades (and probably longer) make it the kind of energy alternative they like. A lot like earlier giving enough rope to solar and wind in the expectation they would fail was meant to turn out - 'oh, too bad, have to keep using fossil fuels'.
PS: Another innovation that raises solar CFs is dual-axis tracking, rotating the panels with gears, cables and motors to follow the sun. The technology would not have surprised Archimedes or Leonardo da Vinci. It increases output in the early morning and, more valuably, the late afternoon. Developers have to weigh the value of this extra output (about +25%) against the extra capital and maintenance costs. The outcome is a mixed fleet. About half the US utility-scale market is dual-axis, half fixed. Perfect tracking requires a more complex 3-axis mount, which is hardly ever worth it. For similar reasons, rooftop installations are usually fixed-axis. Policymakers don't seem to think maximizing CFs is a worthwhile goal either, though it might make sense to encourage ToD pricing. (Slow handclap from Syracuse.)
Of course this is a little unfair. Total solar capacity is roughly 5x total nuclear capacity. Allow a ratio of 1:4 in capacity factors, and annual generation from nuclear is only a little less than from solar: nuclear. But it's all about the trends and the future, which solar-plus-storage has won.
BTW, solar farms are increasingly built with 4-6 hours of colocated batteries, which push the capacity factor up quite a bit. There is no economic point in adding more storage to emulate a 24/7 must-run coal or nuclear plant, as demand - and hence the value of marginal generation - slumps in the small hours of the night, when ducks an humans are sound asleep.
Yes, you're really looking at something like a 2:1 capacity factor now. A 1kw solar panel with storage might generate 7 hours worth of its full rated capacity, spread over 14 hours, covering daytime and early evening, with little demand outside these hours. That matches 0.5 kw of nuclear or coal, without allowing for outages, maintenance.
As much for the commentators as JQ, but I don't see the oomph behind the generalized skepticism about nuclear. They were being built; the French did a bunch; costs were falling? What changed that we coud not get back on an improving technology, falling cost curve? Is ALL solar/wind +battery feasible for high latitudes? It seems reasonable to me that at the lowest cost if not the only way of getting to net zero by 20XX will be a mix of solar-wind-nuclear-geothermal for different sites an circumstances.
Experience at Flamanville , Olkuiluto (sp)and Hinkley C (EDF projects) suggests things have got even worse since time studied by Grubler. KHNP and Rosatom projects also late and over budget. China better, but only within china.
One thing that infuriates me about SMRs is how inferior they are to the best on-paper ideas addressing the same problem. If you're spending billions on something that will probably never happen, why not make it something good? There's a geothermal company which uses MASERs (like lasers, but with microwaves instead of light) to drill incredibly deep holes. At a certain depth, everywhere on earth has access to viable geothermal every. Sodium batteries are another idea I really like - heavier than lithium but much cheaper, for all the applications where weight doesn't matter. (There's a good podcast called What's Your Problem which talks to founders or senior staff in these sort of start ups.)
Instead, we're stuck with carbon capture and nuclear. Obviously it's because the fossil fuel lobby wants bad ideas which will keep them in business if they succeed, not genuinely transformative innovations, but I still find it infuriating.
I don't quite see why the fossil fuel industry likes nuclear. I ascribe the popularity of nuclear construction to masculinism--it's big and dangerous: hence manly enough to appeal to little boys of all ages. (I distinguish nuclear construction from nuclear operations--I support running installed nuclear plants as long as they remain safe enough to operate.)
The reason the fossil fuel industry likes nuclear is because they know it's a pipe dream. While everybody is distracted with the future possibility of nukes, they can keep selling coal for as long as possible. It's also why they love CCS.
It is the paper reactors they like; I am not aware any pivot on their part to actually investing heavily in such nuclear. And it isn't promotion of nuclear to fix emissions, it is nuclear to 'save economies' from renewable energy. Even the insincerity of it is feature more than flaw - a backhanded assurance to climate science deniers that the intention is not to displace fossil fuels
I think high confidence nuclear will never be cost competitive with their fossil fuels and high confidence it cannot scale up sufficiently or fast enough to have any real impact on their business for the next few decades (and probably longer) make it the kind of energy alternative they like. A lot like earlier giving enough rope to solar and wind in the expectation they would fail was meant to turn out - 'oh, too bad, have to keep using fossil fuels'.
PS: Another innovation that raises solar CFs is dual-axis tracking, rotating the panels with gears, cables and motors to follow the sun. The technology would not have surprised Archimedes or Leonardo da Vinci. It increases output in the early morning and, more valuably, the late afternoon. Developers have to weigh the value of this extra output (about +25%) against the extra capital and maintenance costs. The outcome is a mixed fleet. About half the US utility-scale market is dual-axis, half fixed. Perfect tracking requires a more complex 3-axis mount, which is hardly ever worth it. For similar reasons, rooftop installations are usually fixed-axis. Policymakers don't seem to think maximizing CFs is a worthwhile goal either, though it might make sense to encourage ToD pricing. (Slow handclap from Syracuse.)
A nice soundbite: "New report finds global nuclear power capacity is less than the solar added in 2023 alone"
https://environmentamerica.org/center/updates/theres-now-five-times-more-solar-than-nuclear-power-in-the-world/
Of course this is a little unfair. Total solar capacity is roughly 5x total nuclear capacity. Allow a ratio of 1:4 in capacity factors, and annual generation from nuclear is only a little less than from solar: nuclear. But it's all about the trends and the future, which solar-plus-storage has won.
BTW, solar farms are increasingly built with 4-6 hours of colocated batteries, which push the capacity factor up quite a bit. There is no economic point in adding more storage to emulate a 24/7 must-run coal or nuclear plant, as demand - and hence the value of marginal generation - slumps in the small hours of the night, when ducks an humans are sound asleep.
Yes, you're really looking at something like a 2:1 capacity factor now. A 1kw solar panel with storage might generate 7 hours worth of its full rated capacity, spread over 14 hours, covering daytime and early evening, with little demand outside these hours. That matches 0.5 kw of nuclear or coal, without allowing for outages, maintenance.
As much for the commentators as JQ, but I don't see the oomph behind the generalized skepticism about nuclear. They were being built; the French did a bunch; costs were falling? What changed that we coud not get back on an improving technology, falling cost curve? Is ALL solar/wind +battery feasible for high latitudes? It seems reasonable to me that at the lowest cost if not the only way of getting to net zero by 20XX will be a mix of solar-wind-nuclear-geothermal for different sites an circumstances.
Costs in France rose steadily, as shown by Grubler.
For reasons that are applicable today and the next few decades?
Experience at Flamanville , Olkuiluto (sp)and Hinkley C (EDF projects) suggests things have got even worse since time studied by Grubler. KHNP and Rosatom projects also late and over budget. China better, but only within china.