Photonic

If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I'm tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.

Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.

You implied that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.

If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.

If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going

So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.

capacity factors first, since I'm under the impression, that that's the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here

The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.

how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?

Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.

But if you stop assuming you’re talking to a moron I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question:

Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?

A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources.

Well yes. Obviously. And they are rarely able to supply at full power. So that means you are going to have to fill the gaps. To have a functioning grid, you need stability. You can’t say, well it works 95% of the time, as good as it gets folks!

The graph underlines that NPPs can reliably un at maximum power almost all of the time. Not that they have to. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t get what that means.

lower capacity factor

Excuse me what? The capacity factor is about reliability, not flexibility. Why on earth would you want something that’s less reliable. You know you can’t tune the wind or sun, right?

Batteries are only one option here.

And nuclear is another. Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?

You use salt at all? That's Sodium-Chloride.

Yeah I know what sodium is. I don’t need a mansplaination, thanks.

But if you honestly think all it takes to make a sodium ion battery is slapping some salt inside a container we need to start at a whole another level…

they can use existing infrastructure.

No they can’t. We need all of those and more to make Li-ion batteries to make the transition to EVs.

Your entire premise is based on wishful thinking. Let’s not base our entire future on wishful thinking. Instead, let’s diversify, and yes, that includes nuclear to get us through the winter.

Where am I claiming we need to supply the entire world with nuclear power? Again, this isn’t a nuclear vs. renewables discussion. But nuclear can provide baseload power when renewables fail. Which will mostly be nights in winter that have little wind.

Wow genius argument.

Just your wilful misinterpretation of it. And please refrain from personal attacks when a discussion doesn’t go your way. It is not doing your case any good.

You mean the things with storage that you connect to the grid,

Yes. Those. We don’t have the production capacity to make them for everyone worldwide. What is your point?

click on my power suppliers website right now?

You will also need the right EV, the right vehicle-to-grid charging station and most importantly, a garage or a carport. So no, not just a click.

Also it will only supply enough storage for a home. Businesses and industries need power as well…

without storage

Who said anything about going without storage? Come to think of it, let me ask this meta question: why do people always think in absolutes and convenient boxes?

npps are useless

How are NPPs useless? You don’t need so much solar that it does everything by itself if you have nuclear for baseload. Those solar panels are the things that will become useless come winter time. But yes, when there is a lot of sun, NPPs can be turned down during the day and be spun back up during the night. That’s how France does it already. And the still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech may be even more flexible.

Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.

My argument isn’t based on any cost analysis. Where have I mentioned cost at all? I’m not arguing nuclear is going to be cheaper.

The issue is that we already don’t have enough production capacity for (Li-ion) EV batteries, we don’t have any production capacity for the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech, but we do have production capacity for NPPs.

Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and bet it all on a still-fictional-but-likely battery tech?

Not if you organize and do something against it

Oh my sweet summer child…

And when the AI bubbles bursts and the memory is spent it’s all going to be e-waste

Seems more like you’re in denial about the fact that 100% renewables with storage isn’t feasible.

First of all, you assumed wrong. But that doesn’t really matter. Sticking with your USA example, it’s actually very likely that there will be moments throughout the year when there is not enough sun and wind to power the entire country. What about quiet winter days or even nights? And maybe there is some wind in California. Is your plan to place enough wind turbines there to power the rest of the country?

The problem is with reliability. You need power at all times, and not 95% of the time.

As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?

The point is, why wouldn’t you also use nuclear power? What makes it so bad that you want to ditch it? Even if it takes a decade or more to build. It’s a proven technology and extremely stable, much more so than solar or wind, which are not as reliable as you would make it seem.

How so?

Ah, well that’s good news, maybe I had some older data then. But even if it’s 25 years it’s still much less than the life cycle NPPs. And after that you have to go into another process of recycling that requires even more energy and time. And as we’ve seen with plastic recycling, it never works as well as promised.

There really is no meaningful benefit of nuclear against solar.

The meaningful benefit of nuclear over solar is the fact that we don’t have sun for at least 50% of the day and the NPP can continue to run around the clock.

In fact, solar panels have a maximum power capacity of only 25% compared to nuclear’s 93%.

So it’s actually much worse than just the 50% of the day when it is nighttime.

You still need baseload power during the times when solar or wind doesn’t cut it.

Battery storage is an option but we already can’t mine enough lithium to make batteries for all cars to transition to EVs. And while we’re hearing about new battery technologies every day and some kinetic or thermal storage technologies you will always need extra resources and space just to provide baseload power. You realistically can’t make enough storage capacity for the entire electric grid worldwide. So yes, there will always be a need for NPPs, since baseload power is now mainly provided by coal and gas plants.

That's the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.

Yes, but they are more niche solutions rather than widely available or feasible ones.

which makes them carbon neutral.

Only in theory, and only with some crop types. And as with all agriculture, it takes up a lot of space. If we simply used that space to plant trees we wouldn’t have to release those GHGs into the atmosphere at all. And then there is the labour intensive process of sowing, watering, harvesting, processing and transportation that emits GHGs of its own.

give us a good idea of how it will evolve.

Yes, but small scale projects do not tell you how it scales to grids worldwide. Nor how it holds up after years, or what happens when these batteries reach the end of their lifecycle. And it may be decades until we can make it on the scale that is necessary for worldwide deployment.

We already know all of this stuff for NPPs due to decades of experience with them.

We're probably talking about the 2040s at that point.

Possibly, although SMR’s may be built quicker. The point is it’s not the same for a technology that still needs to be developed. All these ideas still need to be developed and then be produced and implemented. So that’s more like 2050s-2060s.

and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install.

Yeah but the person above didn’t realize that these are not competing technologies. The NPP provides base load power, e.g. at night when the solar panels produce none. And solar panels provide peak load power during the day. They meet different demands, but the NPP is more stable and can also be turned up or down during the day depending on the weather.

NPPs are way more reliable than solar, so the current shutdown is big news just because it happens so rarely. And when there are extreme droughts there will probably be lots of sun around for solar to fill the gap.