All communities in the world except maybe France (already nuclear) and some hydro-electric countries are a perfect application of this tech. Currently, most of the world burns diesel/coal/gas for most of their energy needs and politicians are actively preventing that from changing.
PS: oh hello Germany, looking at you specifically.
I recommend looking into base vs peak loading for the energy grid. Nuclear is good as base load power, batteries are good for peak loading and renewables are good for charging batteries.
It's fairly easy to mix nuclear and renewables technically, it just doesn't make much financial sense in most places, particularly if you have to build new nuclear or if you're not too near the poles.
you can't regulate the output from nuclear reactors fast enough
From the article:
"The company touts the microreactor’s solid core and advanced heat pipes, which enable passive cooling and also allow for autonomous operation and load following."
Load following to change your thermal output over minutes or hours isn't frequency correcting which isn't grid stability. Steam turbines can't change speed quickly. Some exotic closed CO2 turbine might.
Can we stop this rubbish? German by percentage uses as much natural gas as France (they use more in absolute numbers), so calling out Germany is just rubbish nuclear propaganda. The reliability of nuclear is a myth, France had to shut down >60% of their nuclear power plants this summer. If nuclear cost 3x as much as renewables why would I not buy 3 times the capacity in renewables. And consider g that this is completely unproven tech I seriously doubt it will be even within the same order of magnitude of current nuclear prices.
>> German by percentage uses as much natural gas as France
False. France uses around 28% non-nuclear (2018 numbers).
Germany uses on average ~65% non-"green" (last I checked) of which the vast majority is gas (especially recently now that they shut down their nuclear). There's no way that France is using equal or more. Not in relative numbers nor in absolute numbers. Source please?
Just to be clear: we're not talking installed potential energy conversion capacity. We're talking actually produced electricity.
>> The reliability of nuclear is a myth, France had to shut down >60% of their nuclear power plants this summer.
So because France fails to do proper maintenance for decades, that suddenly means that nuclear in general is unreliable?
France has had serious nuclear conversion running non-stop for over 40 years and because a lot of that is down for a few months (due to dumb delayed maintenance), that means nuclear is suddenly "unreliable"?
>> If nuclear cost 3x as much as renewables why would I not buy 3 times the capacity in renewables.
Because even with 10.000x the required capacity in renewables you would still need something for base-load. And that something needs to be able to convert ~100% of your energy need for the entire country when your renewables are doing ~0% (exaggerating to make a point). Which is the root-cause of the EU energy crisis (German base load = mostly gas).
Another reason is that "renewables" are not actually renewable at all and have a limited operational life, economic life and huge recycling problems (most solar panels installed now cannot be recycled. At all. Just to give an example).
>> I seriously doubt it will be even within the same order of magnitude of current nuclear prices.
> False. France uses around 28% non-nuclear (2018 numbers).
> Germany uses on average ~65% non-"green" (last I checked) of which the vast majority is gas (especially recently now that they shut down their nuclear). There's no way that France is using equal or more. Not in relative numbers nor in absolute numbers. Source please?
News flash, it's not 2018, and France's nuclear fleet has been having problems for a few years now. They also rely on importing coal and gas energy in winter even when it's actually working. France is better decarbonization wise, but germany has been hovering around 40-46% renewable electricity for a while, you also have to account for more electrification in France. It's about 22% vs 50% for primary energy, but the key take-home is the rate.
> France has had serious nuclear conversion running non-stop for over 40 years and because a lot of that is down for a few months (due to dumb delayed maintenance), that means nuclear is suddenly "unreliable"?
Unplanned outages is a consistent pattern in nuclear everywhere except USA and China. Although if you correctly count overruns as an unplanned lack of generation, it's basically just China
> Because even with 10.000x the required capacity in renewables you would still need something for base-load. And that something needs to be able to convert ~100% of your energy need for the entire country when your renewables are doing ~0% (exaggerating to make a point). Which is the root-cause of the EU energy crisis (German base load = mostly gas).
Another myth. Most of the gas is for heating and other non-electric energy. Germany had to start up coal plants in large part to make up for france's massive shortfall. Uncorrelated renewables can provide a large fraction of power even with negligible storage or hydro. In Western Australia renewables hit 40% average recently. Interconnects, storage and dispatchable power like hydro increase it further (or rather make up for lower solar CF). France is still doing better than germany overall, but at vastly greater expense and Germany's renewable plans were hobbled by barvaria and a head of state who literally works for a Russian gas company.
> Another reason is that "renewables" are not actually renewable at all and have a limited operational life, economic life and huge recycling problems (most solar panels installed now cannot be recycled. At all. Just to give an example).
Another lie. All new PV in the EU must be recycled and the seller is responsible. The supply chains for this can handle any mono or poly silicon panel. Thin film are an obsolete tech, and the metals are safely encased in glass awaiting a time someone wants them. There is significantly more low level nuclear waste than total mass of pv for the same energy output, and orders of magnitude more mine tailings. Wind turbine blades are already finding second lives as building materials and structural elements, and even if they don't they're outmassed significantly by the low level and decomissioning waste of a nuclear reactor.
The only thing that comes even close to the uranium mine tailings in quantity and is not recyclableat a profit is the concrete foundations for wind, but they're not full of toxic heavy metals.
With an ageing nuclear fleet built mostly in the 70s and 80s France has the cleanest electricity of any country in Europe (except those with abundant hydro).
PS: oh hello Germany, looking at you specifically.