Minikeum

A bit of scale: 10 cubic meter of air going through a wind mill at 80 km/h gives you about as much energy as 3mL of oil. 1g of uranium gives you as much energy as roughly 1 ton of oil, or 2.5 tons of coal. Modern wind mill power is typically 4 to 5 MW (one single nuclear reactor is generally 1GW, and there are often more than one reactor in a single power plant). There are some bigger and smaller wind mills, but onshore wind mills are around that. This rated power typically occurs with winds around 40km/h. However, power of a wind mill increases with the cube of the wind velocity. That is, at 20km/h wind velocity, the wind mill produces 8 times less power than at 40km/h. Under 10km/h of wind, even if spinning, the windmill doesn’t generate power. Finally, because renewables power is “unreliable” (you get only power during sunny or windy days), it increases the operating cost of all the other plants (nuclear, but also coal and natural gas) because they can’t run at their nominal load all the time. Don’t tell me about energy storage. It will not be available in time (if ever) in the massive scales we would need to run 100% on renewables.

@ottifant: one reason nuclear energy is expensive is because of the cost of money. A power plant is a huge initial investment, and low operating costs relative to the energy produced. Build a power plants with low interests rates, and its overall cost won’t actually be that high. EROI of nuclear is around 50. EROI of wind mills is 10 to 20 (drops if you include storage). Solar panels is at 5. Coal and natural gas around 30.

@Chuckolicious: I’m glad the US is investing in this technology and I wish Europe did too. France had a plan but they ditched it. China also has something in development which, if done properly, is great news since they are the factory of the world.

Anyway, at current emissions rate, we converge toward a +3.5°C temperature increase. None of the 25 COPs have changed that by the way. And ditching nuclear power plants, like many countries are doing, will only make things worse. With 3.5°C increase, IPCC projects that many regions in the world won’t be able to be farmed anymore. More fun: some regions won’t be liveable for longer periods (combinaison of high heat and humidity, making it impossible for the body to cool down). All this means high strain on food supplies, and massive immigration. And as a result, a much greater risk of wars. I stick to my original post: we need all low carbon energy sources, including nuclear, against fossile fuels. Waiting for the silver bullet energy source, and/or a magical carbon capture technology is pointless in the little time we have to act.

@thenotoriousmic: IAEA reports that - in their high demand scenario - 28% of current known uranium stock (as of 2019) would be used by 2040. Better than 5 years, but it sure doesn’t look good for long term Source: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report

@Chuckolicious: i didn’t. Just wanted to provide some orders of magnitudes. The only viable renewables are hydro - but there are only so many dams we can build, and wind turbines. Solar power is not great, it artificializes way too much land, and most - if not all - production of solar panels is in China

In 2018, the world consumed roughly 10 000 Mtoe of energy, all sources and usage combined. Source: https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2020/final-consumption The biggest wind turbine in the world is 16MW. That’s a 250m tall puppy. Assuming 100% load, we would need 830 000 of these turbines to power the world. With a more reasonable - but still optimist - 30% load capacity, we would need close to 2.8 millions of these giant 250m-tall wind turbines. That’s assuming energy storage has a 100% efficiency, which is absurd. In 2016, the world had 341 000 wind turbines. Source: https://gwec.net/there-are-over-341000-wind-turbines-on-the-planet-heres-how-much-of-a-difference-theyre-actually-making/

Agreed. 29% of electricity is from renewable. Good. But then we need to get rid of fossile fuels in transports, agriculture, heating, heavy industries such as steel and ciment, etc… If you think renewables alone will be able to power all these industries/activities, you’re either naive or brainwashed. We need both renewables and nuclear, and stop opposing them.

Who cares about COP26, or any other COP. It’s just a communication exercise for country leaders. But no real meaningful action is ever decided.