2y ago

How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?

www.lemonde.fr

Show Context

135 comments

@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
A few points to factor in:
A nuclear power station has a much longer lifetime than batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.
You need not only the batteries, but also the panels/turbines to fill them.
Conversion and storage losses are significant. Attached is a rough overview for H₂.
Transmission infrastructure costs to/from individual cars are significant.
24 h is not enough by far to balance out usual fluctuations.
- @MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
  Without klicking anything, 61 million € is practically nothing, so I do not expect this to be a big, impactful project. It might be a nice little extra income from surplus hydro power (Norway is almost completely running on hydro).
  Then looking into the links, this supports just a small fleet of up to 40 ships. Which is good.
  I think it can be a good way for this niche, and it might be one little thing less to worry about.
  
  @MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
  Yes, shipping in general, especially long-distance, is a huge issue. But it is only solvable through economics. A solution must be at least as effective and efficient (from a business perspective) as the current dirty oil burning, /and/ significantly better at something to overcome inertia.
  My bet would be #nuclear power for that: already being done for decades (mostly military though), and the environment seems ideal (no cooling issues).
- @MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
  Batteries are great for short term storage (Hours to Days), but the further you are from the equator, the more you need seasonal storage.
  Hydrogen possibly fits part of that, if it is produced by electrolysis when wind / solar are in surplus.
  Problems are:
  how to store it, it leaks through most storage containers, requires vast amounts of energy to liquify and
  The round trip from Electricity via H2 to Electricity is very inefficient.
  
  @MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
  A thought,
  I wouldn't completely write methane, LPG , or any other petrochemical, off yet, as a seasonal storage medium.
  They are a lot easier to store and transport than H2.
  They can be produced from green H2 + captured CO2
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanation
  We have a lot of existing infrastructure which can use them.
  That is of course If we can produce enough surplus Solar / Wind to make them.
  https://www.power-technology.com/features/eth-zurich-fuel-air-and-sunlight/
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There seems to be a lot of uncertainty around the cost of green hydrogen. The first three Google links differ wildly on it.
  Natural gas has certainly increased the cost of grey hydrogen lately.
  If the problem is the cost of electricity, that's easily solved by producing mainly when there's a surplus of green electricity. However, if the cost is the capital outlay, that's harder. Which is it?
  Of course, we can and must require by law that all new capacity be green. Current incentives also include blue, but there is more green hydrogen actually being built.
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis The problem with using it for long term electricity storage is leaks, of course. It's a weak greenhouse gas (sort of).
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/17/pollutionwatch-hydrogen-power-climate-leaks
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis IIRC most studies show that long term storage is only a few percent of total energy, certainly well under 10%. So it is a viable option - if you can get past leaks, and other problems (e.g. the temptation to burn it, producing NOx pollution). And can store vast amounts of energy relatively cheaply.
  Nuclear is of course a viable option. There are a few others e.g. iron-air batteries, or just building a lot more renewables than we need. Long range interconnectors help. Lithium is only helpful for short to medium term storage.
  Re synthetic fuels, so far extremely expensive and limited scale. Might possibly be used for aviation in the long run (but it's easier just to fly less, and we still need a reliable, safe solution to the contrails problem). Maybe shipping too (possibly as ammonia).
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Here's a study from a while back about how much storage is actually needed, using the example of Australia. You can get to 98% with relatively little storage. For the remaining 2%, you need to think about more difficult options - demand side measures, nuclear, long term storage, etc.
  https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/
  
  @matthewtoad43 @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
  In terms of filling in the gaps in #energy production we could do some fun maths. Imagine massive #renewable overcapacity and see what storage we need.
  Just move the yellow and green lines up x3. This is a typical summer week but we could also look at winter months (less #solar more #wind?)
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Well, California has done a lot of the work for you. Have a look at their charts, including multiple GW of battery storage.
  Also the study I posted about Australia. There was another one but I lost it on the other place. You can get most of the way with a few hours storage, not weeks.
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis What that means is if you're going the long term storage / hydrogen or iron-air batteries route, the inefficiency doesn't matter (but the capital cost does).
  On the other hand if you try to reach 100% with minimal demand side interventions even in emergencies, you end up building way more (3x) renewables than you ideally need. Which has a cost - rare earths etc.
  But there are plenty of options for managing intermittency. All of them have problems or costs though. Which is one reason I'm not strongly opposed to nuclear, for instance, but nor am I terribly enthusiastic about its ability to deliver quickly enough.
  
  @matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
  Might be this one. (Haven't found him directly on Mastodon yet)
  Shows how we can get by in Australia with just 5 hours storage. Uses real time data.
  https://bird.makeup/users/davidosmond8/statuses/1686581904823484416
  
  @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There is commercial production of green hydrogen today, but it requires a subsidy. The cost of grey hydrogen does not reflect the damage it causes.
  
  the cynic in me is wondering if this is just an excuse to rebrand fossil fuels
  That's exactly what it is. Hydrogen power plants are just trojan horses for methane. Since they can burn one as well as the other, but CH4 is much more economically convenient.

135 comments