Read on Twitter
For much of 2011 through about 2017, I was engaged in daily arguments with nuclear proponents. We were fighting a battle of ideas over the future of the US & global power systems. It was us-versus-them.
I don't engage in this anymore.
So what happened? (/1/thread)
I don't engage in this anymore.
So what happened? (/1/thread)
So I should start off by summing up the arguments. On the pro-nuclear side, there were a few arguments claiming nuclear is an inherently superior technology (baseload & small geo footprint) and a lot of promises about pending new tech. /2
But a lot more time was spent by nuclear proponents claiming that renewables could not decarbonize our power system and/or would be far too costly. Over the years I heard just about every argument. Here are some of them. /3
We don't have enough land to support all the solar and wind needed! Believe it or not, a version of this argument was even made by @VaclavSmil in his 2010 book, Energy Transitions.
This one's utterly & transparently bogus. /4
https://solar.gwu.edu/how-much-land-would-it-take-power-us-solar
This one's utterly & transparently bogus. /4
https://solar.gwu.edu/how-much-land-would-it-take-power-us-solar
Argument #2: Solar and wind cost too much, and their costs won't fall fast enough. We'll be saddled with super-expensive power!
I heard this one a lot. I don't even feel like I need to attach a reference on this one. /5
I heard this one a lot. I don't even feel like I need to attach a reference on this one. /5
Argument #3: Solar and wind, as variable sources, can only supply X percent of our power and then they're useless. Related: Large-scale battery storage is impractical and will never be a thing.
See below the evolution of this one. /6 https://theenergytransition.org/article/the-map-and-the-territory/
See below the evolution of this one. /6 https://theenergytransition.org/article/the-map-and-the-territory/
Argument #4 (related to #3): Solar and wind can only supply as large a portion of our annual needs as their capacity factor (roughly).
This one had no math behind it & was simply wrong. /7
https://website.kiuc.coop/renewables
/7
This one had no math behind it & was simply wrong. /7
https://website.kiuc.coop/renewables
/7
Argument #5 (Note how the arguments change over time when they are shown to be wrong)
Solar & wind can never meet the last 20% of energy needs! You'll be saddled with gas plants forever!
This one's more complicated. Because it doesn't apply to all the places w/ flexible hydro.8
Solar & wind can never meet the last 20% of energy needs! You'll be saddled with gas plants forever!
This one's more complicated. Because it doesn't apply to all the places w/ flexible hydro.8
And you know, in places like the US Midwest, it looked like they were right—deep decarbonization w/ wind, solar & batteries is hard (in the winter). Big h/t to @WM_PowerRenew for educating me on the challenges of that one. /9
So what were our (the pro- #Energiewende) arguments? We said, yes, well, wind and solar *are* expensive (they were), but costs will continue to fall.
In truth, we consistently under-estimated the degree to which that would happen. /10
In truth, we consistently under-estimated the degree to which that would happen. /10
We also said, well, we don't know for sure how much wind and solar we can put on because we've never done it. And some claimed/claim we can reach 100% WWS; I've never been fully comfortable with that one.
But we argued we should try.
/11
But we argued we should try.
/11
And what we found was, again and again, we could integrate *much* higher levels of wind and solar than even many of us thought. Now as far as that last 10–20% of annual power in places w/o hydro... /12
That one's hard! We've found a lot of different ways to get at that, from increasing the flexibility of the remaining fleet... /13
https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CPI-Flexibility-the-path-to-low-carbon-low-cost-grids-April-2017.pdf
https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CPI-Flexibility-the-path-to-low-carbon-low-cost-grids-April-2017.pdf
To overbuilding and optimizing solar, wind, and batteries... /14 http://mnsolarpathways.org/spa/
And of course you can keep the existing hydro, nuclear, and gas plants, run the gas less, and get to 90% carbon-free power—by 2035 and cheaply, in fact! (Please forgive the oversimplification of these important, nuanced studies). /16 https://www.2035report.com/
But around 2017, I stopped arguing with nuclear proponents. Why?
Because we won. In the market. /17 https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/01/11/renewables-to-dominate-new-u-s-capacity-in-2021-with-solar-leading-the-way/
Because we won. In the market. /17 https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/01/11/renewables-to-dominate-new-u-s-capacity-in-2021-with-solar-leading-the-way/
For all the talk of a nuclear renaissance, nuclear power plants remained too costly, too slow, too ridden with cost-over-runs and scandals. /18 https://www.postandcourier.com/business/former-scana-executive-pleads-guilty-to-fraud-charges-tied-to-failed-sc-nuclear-project/article_26e23ca8-c50b-11ea-8377-e7b39854212b.html
This does not mean that we renewable energy advocates were right about everything. One thing I was wrong about: I thought that concentrating solar power with molten salt storage was going to be the way we met overnight demand.
Batteries killed that. /19
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/gemasolar-concentrated-solar-power/
Batteries killed that. /19
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/gemasolar-concentrated-solar-power/
Also many of us thought that we would need a bunch of biomass for flexible power, and that biomass would play a bigger role.
I love anaerobic digestion, but for other sources of biomass I'm happy to be wrong.
/20
I love anaerobic digestion, but for other sources of biomass I'm happy to be wrong.
/20
And remember that last 10–20%? Something I never expected came of nowhere to address that: #hydrogen-powered turbines.
I'm not so worried about #dunkelflaute anymore. /21 https://rmi.org/could-power-sector-demand-scale-us-hydrogen-100x/
I'm not so worried about #dunkelflaute anymore. /21 https://rmi.org/could-power-sector-demand-scale-us-hydrogen-100x/
To be fair, I think I and other are still underestimating what we can do with demand-side flexibility. It's a bias; so many of us think in terms of supply-side solutions. I think this one is going to surprise us. /22
But back to the nuclear vs. renewables fight: After we (the renewables side) won, I got a lot more worried about other things. Like transportation-sector decarbonization. Housing policy. NIMBYs (a big problem for all of the above, including renewables). /23
But I'm bringing all of this up now, because I see a couple of studies out there ascribing a role for massive (hundreds of gigawatts) of "firm" power (read: nuclear). And I'm not buying it at all. /24
First off, some of these studies are authored by academics who spent years making arguments #1–#5 in this thread. Second, note the use of the word "firm." Because I forgot bogus pro-nuclear argument #6: that nuclear is flexible. It's not. /25
Yes, you can ramp nuclear power plants. But 1) all thermal generation suffers wear from ramping 2) nuclear is high CAPEX and low OPEX. So while nuclear power *can* ramp, it's a great way to wear out a very expensive asset. /26 https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/06/solar-and-nukes/
BTW, one thing I was wrong about in that last article: the co-existence of solar and nuclear. Short answer: batteries. Battery costs fell faster & deployment scaled faster than anyone expected & batteries make the point about mid-day power conflict moot. /27
But what you really need in a high-renewables system is not inflexible, "firm" power. You need flexible, disptachable power (see CPI's report, Flexibility + most other high RE studies). /28
That and what seem like unrealistically optimistic projections for feasibly getting large amounts of "new" (read: old tech that was never commercialized) reactor designs online make me highly skeptical about these studies. /29
Maybe I'm wrong.
But I wasn't last time. /30/end
But I wasn't last time. /30/end
Postscript: To be clear: I support keeping relatively nuclear power plants online in the United States as long as it is feasible/safe. We can shut them down when we reach 95%+ renewables.
*relatively safe*
