https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
You don’t get ”free electricity” with absolutely massive handouts to the nuclear industry.
Instead renewables and storage are delivering on the ”too cheap to meter” promise.
I have said it before, but in order for me to believe the claims that renewables and storage are delivering in places like europe, you first have to stop investing and building new natural gas power plants. Rather than classify natural gas as "green", as Germany pushed through in EU, we should have laws to prevent new natural gas power plants from being built and existing fleet should be slowly dismantled. If renewables and storage can deliver on the ”too cheap to meter” promise, they should do so in an environment without natural gas being used behind the scene.
That renewable buildout leads to larger fossil emissions being wrong is trivial to verify. The UK as one example of many:
- Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero. - Fossil gas from 175 TWh to 85 TWh. - Nuclear from 80 TWh to 40 TWh.
Massively decreasing all fossil fueled electricity production of course "extends the life" of these plants. All those plants that were shut down had their "life extended".
You can do the same for Denmark, Portugal, California, South Australia and everywhere else. First renewables offset coal followed by cutting into gas usage.
After hitting a plateau storage is now unlocking massive reductions in fossil gas usage in California:
- Gas is down 45% v '23 and 25% v '24
- Batteries up 198% v '23 and 73.4% v '24
https://bsky.app/profile/mzjacobson.bsky.social/post/3lnw3hs...
Storage is exploding globally. China installed 74 GW comprising 134 GWh of storage in 2024. Increasing their yearly installation rate by 250%. The US is looking at installing 18 GW in 2025 making up 30% of all grid additions. Well, before Trump came with a sledgehammer of insanity.
Storage delivers. For the last bit of "emergency reserves" we can run some gas turbines. First our existing fleet and then when it becomes the most pressing issue to decarbonize we can utilize the solution aviation and shipping settled on.
Or just run the gas turbines on biofuels, green hydrogen or whatever. Start collecting food waste and create biogas from it.
Doesn't really matter, we're talking single percent of total energy demand.
I love how completely insignificant issues becomes blown up to enormous proportions try to force nuclear power into the conversation.
Using UK as an example, the majority of energy is not renewables. Why should they build new natural gas power plants? Natural gas produce more energy than any other source in the UK. They are not going from 98% renewables, 2% natural gas. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cle...)
UK should increase the production of renewables energy, but they should also decommission their fossil fuel plants. If they want to use non-fossil fuel solutions, then they should do so and compete fairly and without subsidizes. Same goes for nuclear.
The cost of intermittence should not be paid by the environment or subsidizes, otherwise they are just hiding the true cost that society have to pay.
The only one promising that was the fossil industry, trying to stay relevant by pushing hydrogen as "green" and doing a switcheroo to "blue" fossil-derived hydrogen when green hydrogen inevitably turns out to be nonviable for silly things like mid-term energy storage.
> If renewables and storage can deliver on the ”too cheap to meter” promise, they should do so in an environment without natural gas being used behind the scene.
No. Remember, the goal is to minimize the total greenhouse gas emissions! We're in a transition phase, if that means operating on 97.5% renewables and 2.5% natural gas until we figure out those last 2.5%, then that is totally fine. At the moment natural gas is excellent for peaker plants - especially if you implement carbon capture. Would you rather stay on the current ~50% fossil mix, solely because the transition mix isn't "green enough"? We're trying to save the environment, not trying to be holier than the pope.
Those 97.5% sounds very nice. Denmark has well over 100% renewables production from wind and solar, but in terms of consumption only get around 50%. The rest they need to import. 97.5 vs 50 means there is some work to be done.
I recently posted this link (https://svensksolenergi.se/statistik/elproduktion-fran-solen...) that illustrate how much energy that solar farms produce in Sweden. Getting 97.5% from that would be a nice challenge, especially around the winter months. December and January had around 3% production compared to the best previous month (which we could use as a stand-in for 100% capacity but that would be incorrect).
Natural gas is not fine. The geopolitical consequences are terrible, the environmental impact are not sustainable, and the cost are carried almost exclusively through subsidizes. Trying to sell natural gas as "saving the environment" is a political message that I do not agree with.
Unsubsidized solar and storage is today in much of the world cheaper than coal and fossil gas.
The renewable subsidies stil existing simply add fuel to the already raging fire that is renewable buildout.
Where are all these 14 day full load capable storage plants being built?
I’m not saying they aren’t, I am saying I don’t see the data.
If we included the cost of cleaning up fossil fuel byproducts… well, we don’t even know how much it will cost to clean up all that carbon.
Then we will have to work out how we bill the international relations cost of having to deal with petrochemical producers…
*Yes, I understand it's inflation adjusted. There are so many possible explanations for the observed negative curve that go beyond the bold, broad claim that learning curve theory doesn't hold in nuclear.
In my mind, an (at least) equally reasonable explanation is that the conditions for the learning curve weren't met. (This probably sounds like "no true Scotsman". I admit that the learning curve is a function of scale and relative to mass-production examples, the "signal" for the learning curve is probably weaker to begin with given how many facilities of the same design were actually built.)
-Changes in design pull you backward on the curve. There were lots of changes in French design
-Unsteady expansion timeline messes with the workforce expertise part of the hypothesis. You want ideally an accelerated or at least constant build rate, not large gaps where the workforce either respecializes in another field or retires.
- regulations increase over time. Part of the conditions for the theory are implicitly "all else being equal".
-while inflation adjustment partially accounts for this, labor becomes more expensive as gdp per capital increases (see, for example, low skill manufacturing leaving China as it becomes wealthier). I don't know the details, but given the rapid post-war growth, I'm guessing gdp/capital was growing pretty quickly during the French build out
For relatively low volume manufacturing, the learning curve effects are probably smaller to begin with, so it's easier to get an effective negative learning rate. With so many confounding factors that violate the premise of theory, I find it rather unscientific to definitively claim the theory is just wrong in an entire industry.
We have research on when we have achieved learning effects.
> If you look at the data specifically you're going to find learning but for that there's a several requirements:
> - It has to be the same site
> - It has to be the same constructor
> - It has to be at least two years of of gap between one construction to the next
> - It has to be constant labor laws
> - It has to be a constant regulatory regime
> When you add these five you only get like four or five examples in the world.
From a nuclear energy professor at MIT in a nuclear power industry podcast, giving an overly positive but still sober image regarding the nuclear industry as it exists today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDzaSucDg7k
In the meantime renewables and storage have gone from nascent industries to today be the vast majority of all new energy production in TWh and while costing a fraction of new built nuclear power.
