this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024

66 points (91.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5246 readers

668 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

Energy buffs give small modular reactors a gigantic reality check (www.theregister.com)

submitted 5 months ago by kalkulat@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With a few SMR projects built and operational at this point, and more plants under development, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) concludes in a report that SMRs are "still too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning away from fossil fuels."

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Return on investment is still heavily in favor of solar or wind generation with battery or hydro storage for low generation periods.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and SMR tech is not mature enough to be considered useful, BUT if it can overcome that hurdle, it has the potential for applications that need exceptionally high availability, like data centers targeting five 9s availability.

Energy costs aren't always the only consideration

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago

Excellent point, but we should also consider how much data center utilization is due to wasteful, zero-value-added activities such as crypto mining, which should be banned.

[+] Forester@yiffit.net -11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

We can't scale battery storage or hydro storage to the capacity we need to go carbon free

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

When you look at a large grid such as the EUs, you will find that wind + solar has no days without any electricity production and that worse case is at more then half of average electricity production of these sources.

https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&interval=day&legendItems=jw3w1&year=2023

As soon as you go weekly it becomes even more stable:

https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&interval=week&legendItems=jw3w1&year=2023&week=-1

We also already have a lot of hydro storage in form of reservoirs. Those are built already and can vary their output. It is more of a matter of changing how we use those.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Are we looking at the same graphs? Even going by the weekly one you are vairing by 2x between weeks, that is not stable generation by any serious measure. The grid needs have supply following demand with a tolerance of a percent or two not 50% difference, half a week of EU total energy demand is an insane amount of storage needed that would cost trillions of euros.

E: and if you look at 2022 its worse with a two week period in nov/dec getting down to just over 1/3rd of peak, you would need to have enough storage to cover this eventuality.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 11 points 5 months ago

That is why you overbuilt solar and wind and also add storage. Wind and solar can easily be shut down, so that is an option or the electiricty can be used for making heat and storing that, charge up EVs or something similar. So doubling the average needed solar + wind and having enough storage to balance out a day is enough. Also things like biomass and even more importantly conventional hydro storage are good options. Norway for example has 86TWh of hydro storage alone today.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago

Why not? We're working on things like iron air batteries that only need basic material inputs. We have all kinds of demand response potential that isn't realized. And we can do more transmission so a local event can be covered by capacity in other regions. Besides, any issues we have with the last 5% of generation are meaningless for the next 50%.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Be that as it may, nuclear is not the answer either.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't go that far, but it's fair to say that small nuclear is unproven, both in terms of operational reliability and safety, and also in terms of its economic viability. The economic viability of large nuclear generation plants is also questionable, once you remove all the explicit and implicit subsidies that have kept the industry alive since its start.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 2 points 5 months ago

It's a more competitive if you remove the fossil fuel subsidies.

[–] cows_are_underrated@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago

Also the thing with nuclear power is, that all those experts that build our older generators are now dead. There isn't really any expertise on how to realise nuclear generators. Different country's are building new power plants, but they are all over the estimated costs and delayed by years. When they are done with building they will produce the most expensive energy you can think of.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

So, we should choose an unproven and uneconomic technology (SMR) in favor of a technology that is growing rapidly, is becoming increasingly affordable, and is still improving? At very least, it seems like the tradeoff might be more complex than throwing all our eggs into the SMR basket.

[–] astropenguin5@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

WE CAN DO BOTH!

The future of our energy generation is not a zero sum game, we can simultaneously build out and continuing developing solar, wind, mass storage, and other already proving things while also continuing development on SMR and building large nuclear reactors too. Sure, the nuclear options will take longer to bear fruit but we will likely still be needing more clean energy by the time they do, even with pumping out other renewables as fast as we can.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 0 points 5 months ago

Do thorough research into grid scale power storage. Then tell me that nuclear is more complex.

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Big overruns in budget and time for first 4 plants currently under construction, but the analysis double dips regarding "risk" as they are again talking about financial risk to investors, not risk of meltdown or other disaster.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Investment risk is a category of risk. How's that "double-dipping?"

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

The investment risk is directly related to cost overruns and delays, which are already stated.

On the other hand, a major point of these projects is how they significantly reduce the risk to humans and the environment compared to other nuclear plants, so I don't think I'm alone in expecting the "risk" in the headline was referring to some rebuttal of their claims, but that is not the case.