Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11828
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 3048

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 21/09/21, 17:49

This is the article you posted .... You can say whatever you want, that's it.
The reason ? Renewable energies are not, according to them, still sufficiently developed, at the present time - in particular to meet the increase in demand during the winter period.
0 x
Obamot wrote: Apologize for all the wrong you've done! Apologize here right away — especially to Christophe — and try not to do it again. It's not a “gag”. It's your only chance. If you wait too long you will pay a very, very high price later, a price you don't even suspect.

Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 25544
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 4526

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 21/09/21, 18:07

Exnihiloest wrote:
Obamot wrote:For Blédina 1 + 1 = ALL

If Onabot had read the article, it would have allowed him to respond intelligently.
When only "1 + 1" are able to "create discord" in their own camp, it means that they are not the only ones and that even the most idiots are wondering!
Well no since your mistake is obvious ...

The usual response from someone who has had their hand caught in the jam jar!

Stupid response accentuated by sophism.... The routine with you, what!
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11054
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 980
Contact :

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by izentrop » 04/10/21, 10:14

The price of energy has not finished increasing, the reasons, we know them: depletion ... hence the "energy transition" the concern is that it causes the opposite of what it should : faster and irreversible increase in GHG emissions and it continues
On September 7, the European Commissioner for Budget and Administration, Johannes Hahn, declared
in a press release that the European Union would launch in October the issue of bonds
green, up to 250 billion euros by 2026. As part of the European recovery plan, these
bonds are intended to finance, in particular, investments and infrastructure
"Sustainable", promoting energy transition and contributing to the objectives of combating
climate deregulation.Johannes Hahn clarified that gas could be included for its use
in heating networks and that in no case can these obligations cover the development
nuclear power.
Are the experts going to make them come to their senses?
The final arbitration will therefore take place with the 2nd delegated act, relying on groups of experts.
mandated to evaluate different aspects of the use of these energies. Several have already returned their
conclusions: the first underlined the interest of nuclear energy as a means of combating
global warming, two more, more specialized, have already given their positive conclusions
for nuclear energy on health aspects, on the absence of significant damage to
the environment throughout the life cycle (DNSH Do No Significant Harm); all concluded to
the eligibility of nuclear energy for inclusion in the taxonomy and green investments. https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/ ... leaire.pdf
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1007

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by ABC2019 » 04/10/21, 12:17

izentrop wrote:The price of energy has not finished increasing, the reasons, we know them: depletion ... hence the "energy transition" the concern is that it causes the opposite of what it should : faster and irreversible increase in GHG emissions and it continues

uh ... how can depletion increase GHG emissions ?? : Shock: : Shock:
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
NCSH
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 62
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
x 38

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 20/10/22, 17:53

For two centuries, our thermo-industrial civilizations have used more than 75% of fossil fuels to ensure unprecedented comfort and standard of living. However, since the 1st Oil Shock of 1973, generations of energy specialists have imagined all kinds of solutions to get rid of oil, now it is a question of no longer using all fossil fuels in order to achieve Carbon Neutrality.

Solar energy has long fascinated: planet Earth receives about 8 times the amount of energy consumed annually. Harnessing it in the service of humanity is an old dream, on the way to becoming reality despite the difficulty long presented as prohibitive of its intermittency: our planet rotates on its own and it is therefore not possible to receive the sun's rays in continuous in every point of the globe. The principle of the solution was proposed a long time ago: store it in order to be able to reuse it later.

Until recently, mastered solutions provided only partial answers; but recently there have been several profound developments:

Firstly: the cost of capturing solar energy in the form of photovoltaic electricity has been divided by ten during the previous decade, reaching in tropical regions $25/MWhe in 2016 and now $10/MWhe. This value will become the norm and will make it possible to produce hydrogen in large quantities at an incomparable cost: 1.5 €/kg from 2030, 0.75 to 0.6 €/kg in 2050.

secondo: the energy return time (TER or EROI for the Anglo-Saxons) of this electrical energy produced in the tropics has recently been reassessed to 40 or 50, which makes it possible to produce energy vectors whose ERR is greater than 10.
https://energieetenvironnement.com/2021 ... 45-pour-1/
Therefore greater than 7, value to be reached for "supporting energy-consuming activities such as education, health care, research, the arts." by Jessica Lambert and all "and not only 3 for an energy to be viable" (quote from p.159 of the book by R. Heinberg and D. Fridley: A renewable future. Ecosociété Edition, 2019).

It therefore becomes possible to consider producing large quantities and at a lower cost of energy carriers, many projects are underway:
Hydrogen in direct use, either used on site or exported to future large consumers.
Ammonia for fertilizer, ...
Reduction of iron ore in primary steel, at a rate of 50 kgH2 / ton, i.e. at least 500 Mt of steel.
Non-fossil carbon energies thanks to the capture of CO2 of the atmosphere, for all the uses that direct electrification will not make it possible to solve in an optimal way, i.e. around 5 Mtoe/year, gaseous and liquid.

These energy vectors (the Anglo-Saxons use the more appropriate term "energy carrier") would be obtained for the most part from dedicated solar electrical energy sources (i.e. 120 TWh for 000 Mt of Hydrogen per year ), independently of the normal renewable electricity production passing through the electricity grids, estimated in 2 at 000 TWh.

And nuclear in this future?
Whatever the extent of nuclear electricity production during the XNUMXst century, it will remain, as in the last quarter of the XNUMXth century, an extra energy, the importance of which in the energy balances remains limited.
Similarly, Fusion, if it ever comes to fruition, will compete with the extraordinarily low cost of tropical solar electricity.

As you can see, the Sun does not allow competition, even mini-clones!

Contrary to the wildest dreams of science fiction writers, the energy future of the inhabitants of planet Earth could look a lot like today, without the fossil carbon emissions and associated pollution.

To discover non-fossil carbon energies, take the time to browse the NCSH website (15 min): http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
2 x

sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 7773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 1385

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 20/10/22, 18:52

NCSH wrote:As you can see, the Sun does not admit competition, ...

Are you doing a "Desertec bis" for us?
No doubt there is a "bright" future for solar.
But the units dedicated to the production of hydrogen in the countries of the intertropical band, possibly recombined with CO2 to make it a more sympathetic product from the point of view of transport and storage bound for countries like ours, I believe in it enough little. For local use, it is possible.

It will, like Desertec, come up against major geopolitical and energy security constraints.
We can clearly see it today, European countries (and others) are caught by the throat in terms of energy.
I don't think, even if solar produces less in Europe than in other countries, that they want to get back into a comparable situation, possibly with different players.
It is true that it is less and less expensive, but I think that European countries will prefer to produce solar at 20€/MWhe (to illustrate) at home than to buy it at 10€/MWhe, necessarily in a form degraded by conversion efficiencies, in others.
0 x
NCSH
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 62
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
x 38

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 20/10/22, 23:23

sicetaitsimple wrote:
NCSH wrote:As you can see, the Sun does not admit competition, ...

Are you doing a "Desertec bis" for us?
No doubt there is a "bright" future for solar.
But the units dedicated to the production of hydrogen in the countries of the intertropical band, possibly recombined with CO2 to make it a more sympathetic product from the point of view of transport and storage bound for countries like ours, I believe in it enough little. For local use, it is possible.

It will, like Desertec, come up against major geopolitical and energy security constraints.
We can clearly see it today, European countries (and others) are caught by the throat in terms of energy.
I don't think, even if solar produces less in Europe than in other countries, that they want to get back into a comparable situation, possibly with different players.
It is true that it is less and less expensive, but I think that European countries will prefer to produce solar at 20€/MWhe (to illustrate) at home than to buy it at 10€/MWhe, necessarily in a form degraded by conversion efficiencies, in others.


Désertec was originally just to produce electricity, most of which had to be exported by power lines to the heart of Europe. From what I remember, this should cover 15% of European needs, or barely 1 TWh. The current website mentions an interest in exporting hydrogen.

Depending on imported energy resources only becomes problematic if a country becomes preponderant in imports: this is currently the case, with just 40% of European natural gas in 2019, much more in some countries. The energy vectors produced from solar energy could have many suppliers, both by conversion of the current main producers of hydrocarbons, i.e. mainly Arab countries, but also other countries less "sensitive" from a geopolitical point of view: Namibia, South Africa, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Australia to mention only the largest ones due to the semi-desert areas available. This diversification makes it possible to avoid "being taken by the throat". Obviously, with their Southwest deserts, the USA will have everything at their disposal.

In the case of steel, the Swedes are developing the HyBrit process and are already worried about the additional cost of production in Europe, compared to the price of steel, estimated at between 100 and 250 / tonne. We will therefore need subsidies or rather CfD (Contract for Difference, as for renewable electricity in Europe since 2016) for decades to be able to take advantage of the Kiruna mine.In addition, Hydrogen from wind sources North Sea or Continental will remain expensive: 3 €/kg in 2030, maybe 2.5 or even 2 €/kg at best in 2050. This will limit the scale of European industrial projects, unless we put up protectionist barriers for everything.
1 x
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 25544
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 4526

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 21/10/22, 01:51

Hello and thank you very much for this sharing and this vision of the future...
I share the idea that the best efficiency will be achieved by thermodynamic solar, because it can be stored directly in the form of heat for up to 5 days (which makes it possible to solve the load factor). The 15% for the EU seems low to me with direct current lines with few losses, see superconducting lines. Thus a belt of power stations taking over one after the other would provide a continuous supply that could partially solve the load factor that is lacking in renewables.

sicetaitsimple wrote:
NCSH wrote:As you can see, the Sun does not admit competition, ...

Are you doing a "Desertec bis" for us?
No doubt there is a "bright" future for solar.
But the units dedicated to the production of hydrogen in the countries of the intertropical band, possibly recombined with CO2 to make it a more sympathetic product from the point of view of transport and storage bound for countries like ours, I hardly believe in it. For local use, it is possible.
[_] You lack politeness... Going into the lard for very well-constructed, credible and sensible proposals is inappropriate.
[_] In a “multipolar” world, no geopolitical problem, but maybe it won't be for us...?
It must nevertheless be recognized that in the case of the Ukrainian conflict, the security of energy supply offered by nuclear power can provide survival (very expensive) but achievable. I screwed up and owe an apology to you and Izentrop, having sinned out of idealism.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 7773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 1385

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 21/10/22, 20:51

NCSH wrote:.... The energy vectors produced from solar energy could have many suppliers, both by converting the current main producers of hydrocarbons, ie mainly the Arab countries, but also other countries less "sensitive" from the point of view. from a geopolitical point of view: Namibia, South Africa, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Australia to mention only the largest by the semi-desert surfaces available.


Maybe... Let's say at least that we have time to talk about it again, because initially it is the direct substitution of electricity for uses using fossil fuels that will occupy the ground everywhere. The potential is enormous, and despite its annual progress in volume, the production of PV panels is not infinitely expandable.
0 x
NCSH
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 62
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
x 38

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 22/10/22, 12:43

Obamot wrote:Hello and thank you very much for this sharing and this vision of the future...
I share the idea that the best efficiency will be achieved by thermodynamic solar, because it can be stored directly in the form of heat for up to 5 days (which makes it possible to solve the load factor). The 15% for the EU seems low to me with direct current lines with few losses, see superconducting lines. Thus a belt of power stations taking over one after the other would provide a continuous supply that could partially solve the load factor that is lacking in renewables.


Thermodynamic solar still has many surprises in store for us, despite a chaotic journey for more than 50 years.
In particular, a new generation of power station with tower and adjustable mirrors is being prepared, with thermodynamic efficiencies close to 50%, reached at around 700/750°C associated with heat storage for around 16/18 hours.
But it will be above all to produce power at night, within the framework of integrated complexes, as in the Noor Ouarzazate projects in Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, ... that could be the future of this type of project.
The cost of production has finally also fallen and has now reached the threshold of $100/MWhe and should fall further in future projects.

You mention the possibility of storage for 5 days. In addition to the quantities of molten salts (or better particles of silica or alumina to be able to restore temperatures of 700°C), if the Chinese and others were to deploy nuclear reactors using Thorium, there would be the problem of the resource of molten salts; but above all, 5 days is not enough to compensate for episodes of lack of wind and sun in the winter period of our so-called temperate climate.
Perhaps that would be enough for the countries of southern Europe, but in the heart of Europe it is at least 15 full days: it is now, since the beginning of 2020, a quasi-official figure mentioned in the TYNDP 2020 and 2022 reports.
This constraint of being able to massively produce electricity during prolonged winter episodes called by the Anglo-Saxons "cold spell", "dark doldrum" and by the Germans "kalt dunkelflaute" has so far been totally neglected by almost all promoters. renewable electricity in temperate countries.
This will require, to clarify this poorly known subject during the coming decade, complex and long studies combining historical meteorological data and the operation of electrical networks in rare circumstances where electricity needs in cold weather involve the intensive operation of heat pumps. for more than 50% of homes, very high proportions of individual electrified vehicles, in addition to current levels of electricity consumption.

One and only solution: the massive underground storage of natural gas or synthetic methane or even hydrogen (for countries with a very significant geological potential to dig new salt cavities) can guarantee at the end of winter such amounts of energy. Synthetic methane will retain the incomparable advantage of being able to store summer production for the winter thanks to its volumetric density 4 times higher than hydrogen, which will make it 5 times less expensive than hydrogen in this type of case of inter-seasonal storage: €5/MWhth compared to 25 for hydrogen, according to a 2020 Bomberg NEF report.
1 x


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 51 guests