Why has the world started to mine coal again?
With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.
Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?
Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.
Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this
You are viewing a single comment
Well, nuclear energy is expensive anyways and the amount of uranium on this world seems quite limited.
It's just not the technology of the future. In the long term we should use regenerative energies that are way cheaper.
Right, but that's why people are talking about nuclear as a bridge technology, not as a permanent solution. Whether or not we can make it pencil out before smashing through all of the critical tipping points in global temperature averages is not something I'm qualified to have an opinion on, but I'm credibly informed that we might at least want to give it a serious look.
At one point in the future I'm sure we can look back, do the calculations and see if that had been a good bridge or an expensive thing for the taxpayer to deal with the dismantling and long time storage.
As of now I think the time of that bridge technology has come to an end anyways. We now have efficient renewable energies available. And concepts for energy storage. I think we should invest in that instead of putting the money into a thing of the past.
Nuclear is no more expensive than renewable. The amount of uranium is limited, but it's not the only fuel for nuclear.
Sure it is. The World nuclear status report 2021 for example says it's five times more expensive than wind energy.
And sure there are other fuels for nuclear. But I think most of them are even more limited?!
The paper doesn't account account for availability. Nuclear has over 90% availability, which means for 1MW of power installed, you get on average over 0.9MW of power to use. Renewable are far below that, between 40 and 60% iirc. Which means you need to double the cost for a defined output. And that doesn't consider batteries.
Unless the document talks about that, please point me to the right chapter then.
Damn. I shouldn't have linked auch a long PDF. What are you talking about? I'm referring to the diagram (and text) on page 293. The annual Levelized Cost Of Energy.
It's not only calculated on sunny days. They take the annual energy output for the calculation. Availability and everything included or these numbers wouldn't make any sense.
And yes, we need batteries. But the nuclear plants also need other (faster) plants alongside. And this match isn't a close call. With a 5 fold increase in being economical, we have plenty of money to spare to afford some batteries and hydroelectric dams.
I was looking at the building cost. Looking more into the Wikipedia article, it seems to account for availability. But the numbers are very speculative still, there is a crazy variation both for the specific data points and for the studies. Another big factor is the interest rate for investment which can double the cost of nuclear energy depending on the assumption.
Another thing that bother me is the speculative nature of these things. No photovoltaic power plant ever went through its whole lifespan. No significant energy production was made with variable renewable. Whereas nuclear was used for 70 years now. Yet the speculation makes it like nuclear will be expensive and unreliable and renewable will be cheap and reliable when the actual history is the exact opposite. Technology advances obviously, but still. I don't consider renewable to be a tried and tested technology that scales while nuclear is.
Idk. Solar cells have been around for a while, too. Wind turbines are kind of simple devices. I bet an engineer can predict their maintenance cost and lifespan fairly accurate. Hydroelectric power plants have been around for more than 100 years. Electric cars have been invented before the combustion engine took off. Nuclear power has been around for some time. But you can't use that as an argument and simultaneously argue about using thorium which large scale deployments are still hypothetical.
And I don't think those numbers are 500% off. You can double some cost and were only at 200%. And they're not complete speculation. They took the actual numbers of the previous year. And the years before that. These numbers are the 'actual history'.
Pardon? Norway? New Zealand? Switzerland? Iceland? Sweden? Countless others I probably forgot because I'm bad at geography? The USA and China, Philippines, Indonesia all have major 'variable renewable'. Thousands and thousands of megawatts of energy are generated this way as of today. Then there is biomass if you're geologically not that favored by nature, but I barely know anything about that. And who says we can't use the sun and wind? Of course we can also use those.
What proportion of those countries' energy is renewable? Because that's the big problem: when renewable are less than 50% of your energy, you can balance the load with the rest ; when it's 80%, it's a whole different story. No country has the most of its energy from renewables, and thus we don't know if it can even work over time, it's not proven. The scale matters. Producing a prototype is not the same as the whole industrial thing. That's exactly what's happening with nuclear btw: after 30 years of abandon, the construction is hard and more expensive and time-consuming than expected because we need to relearn how to do it. But prototype is not industrialisation. And that's a problem renewable will run into: industrialisation. Where do you all the silicium you need for the batteries and solar panels? How do you deal with balancing the load? And there will be unexpected problems. Nuclear already dealt with these problems. Will renewable actually be able to expand everywhere? Because there isn't wind and sun everywhere. I severely doubt Switzerland can power itself this way for example.
And then, isthere any solar or wind farm of more than 30 years? I'm pretty sure there isn't because their lifespan is less than that and the last models that are so efficient are less than 10 years old anyway.
The experience also shows that all countries that went for renewables ended up using more fossile energy btw. Spain and Germany most notably. How do you answer this problem? This is not theory, this is what happened when countries decided to use renewable energy.
I'm sorry. Let's end the argument here. We won't agree. Some of your points are valid, most of them are plainly wrong or don't contribute.
Yes, this page shows there are currently 4 countries above your arbitrary 80% demonstrating exactly that.
Yes. See above.
We've already established countries like Germany with close to 50% renewable aren't a prototype. I've given countless other examples.
then don't do it.
You're sure nuclear is without issues nowadays?
That's why we shouldn't only do 100% of those. I've explained several alternatives and you can store and transport energy across the continent.
We don't focus on batteries and solar. We need a diverse mix. In fact we don't need batteries at all, we need energy storage. But this doesn't have to be batteries. Same applies to solar. I'm living a bit far north and it gets rainy here sometimes. Maybe just take another kind of energy.
Btw. where do you get your uranium 235? Is that a different argument?
Well, how do you do it? Nuclear also is generating a relatively constant amount of energy. Day and night, 24/7. Nuclear also doesn't balance the load. Same argument applies here.
Nobody says it has to be 100% this or that by tomorrow. It needs to be a diverse strategy. It needs to factor in individual geographical facts. If we're only at 70% renewable tomorrow it's better than 20%. It is a process. We don't have to skip everything and jump to 100% immediately. Let those natural gas plants run a bit and balance out things, as they do today. Just put in the effort. Once there are cheaper alternatives, use them and don't cling to old technology just for the sake of it.
Let's scrap solar for the sake of this discussion. Let's say material science is completely wrong and they vastly over-exaggerated lifespan of solar panels. Solar is a small fraction of the equation. Tell me what in a wind turbine we don't understand. Windmills have been around for centuries. As have been generators. I'm not looking that up but I bet we had wind farms in the 70s. Water power has been used to generate electricity for more than a century. It works at scale for some time now. Geothermal works with steam and turbines. They're also in your nuclear plant. Can you explain all this away?
As is everything that made some progress. My computer is faster and better in most aspects than the one I had a decade ago.
Politics. Germany was supposed to invest into renewables and phase out the old stuff. In a sane way. Then we switched off all the nuclear plants at once (after Fukushima). Obviously this requires buying energy from neighboring countries and ramping up other technology. We subside companies wreacking havoc throughout the Niederrhein for brown coal which isn't even economical in the first place. Instead of investing that money into our future. We also killed off our domestic solar industry years ago. The war in Ukraine happened. That took us by surprise and we were dependant on Russian natural gas. I'm not an expert on Spain.
You're right with your distinction between theory and the real world. What we should do isn't always what we do (or did). When someone does something stupid, it doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. But you're supposed to learn from their mistakes. And factor in everything if you want to talk about what makes sense for the future.
The wikipedia article on renewable energy also has some facts about history and state of the art in green energy, so you can have a look at the world-wide numbers and decide if your perspective is that this is sci-fi or actually out there. I don't say this is easy or possible without changes to the energy grid, society or whatever. And I don't argue we need to do 100% solar. Or get rid of all of the batteries in the world. Or do everything with lithium batteries. Or the problems getting from 0-20% are the same as going from 80-100%. That's not my argument. My argument is, if it's the cheapest option in the long run. And the way to not further temper with climate. Why not use this? Why not invest in this unless there is a proper argument against it? We've already begun, made some mistakes and are getting smarter by the day. Nuclear has so many challenges that are difficult to solve. And looking at the numbers, it's unlikely it will improve so much in its current form that it'll become better than renewable anyways. I'd be happy to reconsider things once sombody gets a nuclear fusion reactor viable for real-world use.
The countries you show that are high on renewable are using hydro/marine, not solar or wind.
Notice that I am not against renewable. I'm all for it. I'm just saying that it is delusional to think that we can forgo nuclear for energy production in a short or medium time scale.
My problem is not renewable, it's people who are against nuclear.
I'm also not against nuclear per se. My problem is, handling the radioactive stuff is what makes it very expensive and there is no way around that at this point. For example I see many issues storing that waste. It is true that these geological structures have been there for millions of years. But once you drill into them, this isn't the case any more. We have massive problems finding a final storage repository, and for several reasons. We've tried for decades. My prediction is that it'll be massively expensive to look after these things in the tousands of years to come. At some point there will be an issue, water will get in and more billions of money will be needed to clean that up. This will not be payed for by the people who used that electricity.
It makes me a bit angry that nuclear is massively subsidised. They get subsidised when building plants, they didn't have to have the money for dismantlement ready. I bet this will be some more 100 billions for the german taxpayer. They probably only pay a fraction of the needed research. If they're basically only paying for operation, I can tell, why this looks feasable for people and nobody believes the actual numbers.
And it's a bridge technology anyways. There's no way around that. Once the real deal is around, you need to accept that and slowly phase it out.
I believe in the studies, the state of the art in research and actual numbers. Without factoring the subsidies I just talked about in, we talked about the study in the USA where nuclear power was 5 times as expensive to generate. And those are real electricity prices. The subsidies and unaccounted cost of waste storage that become just extra profit for those companies, get on top.
So why do you want to pay extra for electricity? Why do you want to create more and more difficult to solve problems? Why invest even more money in such a dying technology? I mean, I'm okay if we don't switch off those existing plants before they're due. They're here and we may as well use them to cut down CO2. But please. If science tells you it is expensive and difficult by some huge factor. Don't throw more billions and billions at yesterdays technology and research in blind hope that you'll be able to bridge that gap somehow. It's not competetive as of today. And you'll need more and more money to stay in business in the future.
I don't want to pay that with my taxes. And we need that money for the energy transition. To address some of the issues you mentioned. Especially like you said for the last few percent getting close to 100% renewable. That will also be expensive. And now we need money to make changes to the energy grid and afford more offshore wind for example. And politics to really think hard and have the right incentives for people and companies in place. The off-shore wind park will generate energy day and night for decades to come once you build it. The energy grid and energy storage facilities will be an investment. Please don't waste all the money because I want someone to build a carbon-neutral helicopter to fly to these off-shore windmills and service them.
There had been a time where your nuclear was the right choice. Now it's a money-losing business for the people. And renewable would be an investment into their future. The actual numbers tell the same story. So I'm more against stupid and expensive choices, than against nuclear specifically.
I want to pay for something that works. That's how you wisely invest money. And what works is a mix or nuclear and renewables.
But ecologist are pushing hard their propaganda against nuclear so we would have to use gas or coal for decades before the smart grid can work.
As for the cost, it doesn't account for storage. Unlike nuclear that does account for dealing with wastes. Wastes that are far, far less of a problem than what ecologists are afraid of.
Again, that's simply false. Around the world, the taxpayer ends up paying the major portion of the cost needed to dealing with that. Look it up.
And a mix of nuclear and renewables isn't that smart. These two don't complement each other. Nuclear doesn't 'balance out' the fluctuations of renewable by pushing the rods more in or pulling them out. Look at the diagrams. Nuclear produces a constant amount of energy, day and night. It is theoretically possible, but practically not feasible to cycle this too much. They do not complement each other. You'd need almost the same energy storage facilities you'd need without nuclear being in the mix. It's a waste. And I don't know who listened to too much propaganda. If the studies and numbers tell a different story, maybe reflect a bit on your previous knowledge. I've also grown up learning nuclear is a cheap way of generating energy and it produces less CO2. But technology has made advancements and the first thing just isn't true (anymore).
And you're generating more cost for future generations. Dealing with the waste. Dismantling those reactors is a huge ordeal. You end up with vast amounts of concrete that is expensive to treat. That isn't an investment, that's a liability. On the other hand, a wind farm is an investment.
(Sorry. I don't want to argue with you specifically. I'm more annoyed by politics for making the wrong decisions. And getting us to in the situation where we now burn all that coal that we wanted to get away from. This was the original subject of this discussion anyways. We're now in that situation and we can't change the past. But we can make the right decisions for the future, now. And I expect politicians to know how much for example 100 billions of money is. And they should do scientific studies with the current state of knowledge and then do the calculation and do what's best.)
Thorium is one of the most abundant material on earth. Unlike lithium for example.
Yeah. But the technology is - at this point - more sci-fi than anything else. Probably nothing we need to worry about in the next few years.
And you still need to mine some non-renewable resource. It's still nuclear and produces waste. And it seems super expensive.
There are working thorium reactor for 50 years or something. Hardly sci-fy.
Renewables need batteries to work. Which needs lithium.
Sure. Just use molten salt energy storage, hydroelectric dams or whichever of the dozens of technologies makes most sense where you are.
Combine different kinds of renewables so you get power at night and when the wind isn't blowing. Build more then enough and if you got excess energy, maybe make some hydrogen.
Have your devices and industry 'smart' so it draws less power when there's less supply.
You really don't need to do everything with 'normal' batteries like in a smartphone.
The 'working' thorium reactors are for research. They don't generate energy. At least if we're speaking about generating energy for a whole country. The planned thorium reactors of the next many years also don't generate any significant amount of energy. With that argumentation we also (almost) have nuclear fusion power plants.
A thorium power plant that contributes to the power grid and shows up in the numbers is sci-fi. I mean, it's not impossible. It's just lots of very expensive work left to do.
Thorium reactor that contribute to the power grid is as much sci-fy as all the technologies you describe to have a working renewable energy grid.
Meanwhile there are whole countries powered from nuclear energy, and switching to thorium makes no difference for the grid itself.
Finally if ecofanatics didn't shut down or sabotage research on thorium reactors we would be closer from a working tech.
Well you didn't google any of that.
Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but the cost of running one especially when adjusted to the amount of electricity it produces is not significantly more than running any other power plant. Also uranium is not considered to be a gobally scarce resource.
That's also what I believed. But turns out nuclear is the most expensive kind of energy.
Here's a good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k
(Seriously, watch it)
The high cost is largely explained by the fact that there's no "standard model" for nuclear power plants but instead they're all designed and built from scratch which can make them really expensive. Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland is the world's 8th most expensive building at whopping 12 billion dollar cost to build. The original price estimate was 3 billion. Many of the buildings on that list ahead of Olkiluoto 3 are also nuclear power plants.
This however isn't some inherent probem about nuclear power itself but rather the way we do it. It doesn't need to be that expensive.
Yeah, I'm still not convinced. If current state of the art makes it 5 times more expensive than current state solar or wind. Your explanation needs to be more than 'but we choose to build it more expensive than it needs to be'.
Sure theoretically this might not be an inherent problem. But the same applies to renewable. I'm not sure if solar or wind are close to something limiting their efficiency or cost of production. There might be new technology advancing both of them. We can talk about this and look for more information. But it's a very hypothetical discussion. As of now in the real world, there are real-world power plants and if no-one can demonstrate to bridge that big gap in economic efficiency... Maybe there's something to it...
And apart from that. I'd argue that there are some inherent problems. For example mega-projects having issues with their budget. That's a very interesting topic but inherent to big and complex projects for several reasons. Also a nuclear plant and all the infrastructure around it is inherently more complex and more expensive than for example a wind turbine and what we need to assemble a bit of steel tubing, wings and a bit of copper. (Broadly speaking.) I think it's a combination of factors. But I'd be surprised if the future holds something increasing the economic efficiency of nuclear (fission) power plants by that factor.
(Edit: Those numbers from the video are for the US. But 5 times more expensive is huge.)
We don't choose to build it more expensive than it needs to be. It's by nature always going to be more expensive to build one of something instead of what the cost per unit is going to be when you make many.
Wind and solar isn't going to solve the issue untill we come up with a way to store energy on large scale. When you plug in an appliance that electricity is not taken from a reserve but it's produced for you in real time. Wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine according to how much electricity is needed at each moment. Finland produces all its electricity basically by hydro, wind and nuclear power. When it's windy we have excess electricity and the prices drops to negative and we got to sell it abroad but when it's calm the opposite is true. This wouldn't be the case if we could somehow store that excess energy.
We're talking about effective cost of the resulting power, altogether. All things included. (Except for nuclear waste, which is a topic for a different discussion and difficult to quantify.) Just comparing one aspect wouldn't be fair.
Yeah, and science and investors are way ahead of politics. There are several concepts already available or already in place somewhere. Several promising ideas and projects that need funding. Storage facilities that aren't able to store energy because Bavaria is not willing to run cables across the country. It is a complex topic that also needs individual solutions. For example depending on geography you could have dams and pump water. Or one of the concepts that work everywhere. Infrastructure and cunsumer get more advanced/intelligent. You could charge your car automatically during periods where renewable is abundant. You can fine-tune factories, maybe have the large heat pump of an office building vary temperature a bit when there is a Dunkelflaute. Some countries just get geothermal power for free because of their location.... You can put those storage facilities close to energy generation or close to the consumer. And as supply and demand changes prices, it's also well aligned with the way our economy (and capitalism) works.
We should really hurry up and put in the effort this needs. Because we really need those storage facilities. And I'd like energy costs to come down again, and CO2 emissions also.
And if I remember correctly, the current natural gas power plants are the ones that can react to supply and demand the most quickly. But this seems not to be a good idea anymore, now that we have enough problems with the natural gas in central europe. I (personally) would be happy if there was an alternative.
I haven't heard any scientist in the last years tell something different from renewable plus storage is the way. Not unless some miracle happens and we get fusion reactors or something. But it's still unclear it that's going to happen.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.