More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy. I talked to an energy analyst a few years back who knew how to read past the politics and interpret the math. The short of it... energy consumption projections for next 25 years outpace even the most optimistic renewable growth curves. Without a significant increase in nuclear power, the only option left is fossil fuels.
The estimated energy needs of developing countries is massive. Renewables can offset it a bit, but it's a drop in the bucket. Even if nuclear got past political blocks, it still takes 30 years to build.
[Edit] The above is just one analyst's opinion. It may be inaccurate our outdated and lacks sources.
> Because they lobby against advancement of renewable energy?
Almost the opposite, look up the "solar not nuclear" campaign by oil heat institute.
> More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy.
Exactly this. Oil companies know nuclear is their greatest threat, and that fossil fuels conveniently fill the shortcomings of intermittent renewables.
"As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power"." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
Objectively false. Average global nuclear power plant construction time is somewhere around 7 years. Some get delayed significantly, some are done in 3 years, but it averages out shorter than you think.
For perspective, solar plants are about 2 years to get operational, combined cycle natural gas is around 3.
The other thing to keep in mind is that nuclear plants have seen significant upgrades, and continue to over their lifecycles. The US has added 19GW of nuclear capacity without building any new plants in the last couple decades which is certainly a reason why new nuclear projects haven't been happening that often.
Meanwhile China is building a ton of new plants, Russia is building something like 20 reactors for other countries, France has decided to keep all of its nuclear capacity after they cancelled their plan to shut them down, so I'd guess nuclear energy isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
What would be necessary is to have the NRC/etc approve a few modern reactor designs along with clear guidelines as to where/how they can be built. That'd reduce the regulatory burden on all sides which in turn would reduce cost, construction time, and operational safety significantly. That's as close to a solution to this problem as I've come across, and, quarterly, I write a letter to the government agencies in question telling them that. It's not much, but hey, I'm doing my part.
My knowledge is likely incorrect, but I think the 30 year number comes mostly from the politics side. It takes a long time to get approval, much less time to build.
If nuclear is easy to build, people should stop posting about it and build it, stop invading every damn article about the energy transition with comments that say “nuclear is the only way, now let me explain the unlikely set of political and economic conditions that will actually cause something to happen at the scale we need.” China is currently building nuclear faster than any nation in the world, and still the rates of construction (and increase in rate of construction) aren’t in any way keeping up with their renewable buildouts.
Any explosion in nuclear builds that had a chance of mattering on the time scales we need is not going to require just a few standard designs. It’s going to require mass factory construction of SMRs, and solving all the problems that haven’t been solved in that area. And we’re not there at all.
Sure, though I wonder if we might see areas where the development is similar to cell phone growth: areas with poor infrastructure found it easier to put up towers than to run copper POTS lines. Likewise, localized energy production may be quicker to expand than traditional grids, once prices hit a certain point.
That's a fine strategy for residential users, it's probably not adequate for industrial use, and if you care about CO2 you want industry to be reasonably close to consumption.
It's also a good idea to avoid "accidental colonization" by ensuring countries decide and own their selected infrastructure.
The faster we burn through fossil fuels (especially Oil and Natural Gas), the sooner the transition will be. The only question will be how painful it is.
At least one big chemical company [1] has tried to make the case that they should be allowed to keep exploring for oil as they don't intend to burn it.
I drive an EV and love it, it’s our only vehicle. But many of my fellow Americans aren’t going to drive anything but gas until they’re unable to buy it.
The oil major projected that oil demand would remain at 85 million bpd in 2050 even if every new car sold in 2035 is an electric vehicle. That's roughly the same level of demand as in 2010.
Does anyone know the distribution of oil for consumer gas vs other uses (fertilizer, airplanes, ships, etc)?
Taking it as generic fossil fuels seems silly because coal usage is quickly disappearing everywhere. Coal is not cost competitive vs solar.
Non-fuel uses make up roughly 10% of oil demand. Certainly significant, but unless plastics, fertilizer, etc have absolutely insane growth in the next 25 years, it won't keep demand level.
Non-fuel uses make up roughly 10% of oil demand. Certainly significant, but unless plastics, fertilizer, etc have absolutely insane growth in the next 25 years, it won't keep demand level.
Just in case it wasn't clear - this is not the question being asked, nor is it likely the reason electrified cars won't reduce needs below 2010 levels.
(most likely it's because personal transportation is < 30% of total energy use and energy use is probably going to keep going up)
I can store it, but they loose charge over time. This whole business of replacing oil with electricity feels like pyrotherapy applied to energy production. We need something better, because achieving zero emissions at the cost of additional environmental damage an pollution doesn't seem like progress to me (lithium mining is not something you will see showcased at the Chelsea Flower Show).
Batteries used for the grid are reliable and with very little environmental concerns. You can use water batteries or other various gravity batteries. Very efficient, these lose practically no energy over a long period of time.
The problem is small (ish) batteries. Like those in cars. Which is why it's very, very important to start phasing out large scale automobile transportation. We've had electric trains for decades and not only are they orders of magnitude more efficient per passenger, they also don't require batteries.
Sorry, should have explained better. Bigger batteries can be trickle topped up with solar power, even when not a lot of sun. Because the battery has more capacity, it easily keeps up with traditional energy needs day to day.
They are filthy rich. They could diversify in preparation for a complete pivot if they wanted to - other majors are - but for some reason Exxon seems completely stuck.
If you look at a chart of worldwide energy mix[0], you'll see that no energy source has ever really substituted for another. Coal is "old" but we are still burning it at as high a rate as ever; we've merely added more sources of energy as we've advanced. Our thirst for energy seems insatiable, so Exxon seems to be reading the situation correctly. Obviously we will destroy ourselves with this behavior, but hopefully only after I've passed on.
In spite of our human tendency to divide ourselves into smaller groups, we all share one planet, and particularly relevant, one atmosphere. Perhaps developing countries can leapfrog to renewables, but if they have easily accessible fossil fuels, it seems likely that they will be exploited; they are irresistible if you ignore the negative externalities.
Per country is pretty irellevant for this issue. Also, its pretty unclear to me that the per coi try is true when the third world tha% upped coal usage to compensate are atleasy partially using it for good to export and increased standard of living from higher paying export jobs
Non-fossil oil probably does exist, but I've never seen a credible claim that there's very much of it. Other than the fact it's not literally made from fossils, but from general carbon-based life.
Oh wow this statement of yours is a blast from the past, it's like I'm back in the twentieth century for a bit.
But seriously, where are all the new discoveries then?
Also... where is the energy coming from in this spontaneous process? I would love to have your take or links to sites that explain how this works.
You’d have to assume China essentially stops building renewable energy and upgrading their grid on the trajectory they are, and all improvements in renewable tech essentially stop. This is excluding the rest of the world. There are plenty of reasons we could screw this up, but assuming renewables won’t tear into fossil electricity generation is a terrible bet.
Why would anyone expect otherwise? Humans have proved themselves utterly incapable of providing an alternative (namely, rich countries subsidizing the energy interests of poor countries).
One barrel of oil stores 1,700 kilowatt-hours of energy. Fossil fuels don't compete only against wind or solar. They also compete against energy storage technology.
Energy demand grows in the third world and they don't have money to invest in large scale energy storage until it becomes very cheap.
69 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadThe estimated energy needs of developing countries is massive. Renewables can offset it a bit, but it's a drop in the bucket. Even if nuclear got past political blocks, it still takes 30 years to build.
[Edit] The above is just one analyst's opinion. It may be inaccurate our outdated and lacks sources.
That is a novel view. Perhaps a reference?
Perhaps it is not true
Almost the opposite, look up the "solar not nuclear" campaign by oil heat institute.
> More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy.
Exactly this. Oil companies know nuclear is their greatest threat, and that fossil fuels conveniently fill the shortcomings of intermittent renewables.
"As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power"." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
Objectively false. Average global nuclear power plant construction time is somewhere around 7 years. Some get delayed significantly, some are done in 3 years, but it averages out shorter than you think.
For perspective, solar plants are about 2 years to get operational, combined cycle natural gas is around 3.
The other thing to keep in mind is that nuclear plants have seen significant upgrades, and continue to over their lifecycles. The US has added 19GW of nuclear capacity without building any new plants in the last couple decades which is certainly a reason why new nuclear projects haven't been happening that often.
Meanwhile China is building a ton of new plants, Russia is building something like 20 reactors for other countries, France has decided to keep all of its nuclear capacity after they cancelled their plan to shut them down, so I'd guess nuclear energy isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
What would be necessary is to have the NRC/etc approve a few modern reactor designs along with clear guidelines as to where/how they can be built. That'd reduce the regulatory burden on all sides which in turn would reduce cost, construction time, and operational safety significantly. That's as close to a solution to this problem as I've come across, and, quarterly, I write a letter to the government agencies in question telling them that. It's not much, but hey, I'm doing my part.
Any explosion in nuclear builds that had a chance of mattering on the time scales we need is not going to require just a few standard designs. It’s going to require mass factory construction of SMRs, and solving all the problems that haven’t been solved in that area. And we’re not there at all.
It's also a good idea to avoid "accidental colonization" by ensuring countries decide and own their selected infrastructure.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos
Taking it as generic fossil fuels seems silly because coal usage is quickly disappearing everywhere. Coal is not cost competitive vs solar.
(most likely it's because personal transportation is < 30% of total energy use and energy use is probably going to keep going up)
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/is-lithium-mining-bad-for-...
The problem is small (ish) batteries. Like those in cars. Which is why it's very, very important to start phasing out large scale automobile transportation. We've had electric trains for decades and not only are they orders of magnitude more efficient per passenger, they also don't require batteries.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/135642main_b...
Put some panels on your roof and it's not hopeless.
[0]https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
For everybody else, renewables are far cheaper.
I am wondering what would happen to Exxon if they publicly said the opposite though?
As a matter of fact, we don't know that other oil companies haven't reached opposite conclusions and just kept mum.
But seriously, where are all the new discoveries then? Also... where is the energy coming from in this spontaneous process? I would love to have your take or links to sites that explain how this works.
This isn't that: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Worldwide-oil-discover...
Shy of some herculean effort (a la pandemic style massive monetary injection into renewable energy), I don't see this as being unrealistic at all.
Buses and taxis are largely electric. About half my friends have electric cars.
We're right in the middle of a great transition.
We need to be more data driven in evaluating our progress.
I don't think your post fits in the guidelines.
China has a net zero goal of 2060. They “may” have reached peak emissions. Many would argue their goals aren’t aggressive enough.
At any rate, we should look at the data rather than narratives.
Globally, are we going to reach our climate change goals?
“Globally, are we going to reach our climate change goals?”
Energy demand grows in the third world and they don't have money to invest in large scale energy storage until it becomes very cheap.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Would be nice if we can get it down to 50%