Ten clanok v zasade nie je ani tak proti jadru, len sumarizuje ake moznosti mame, keby sme ho chceli nahradit v ramci vyrovnavania nestabilnych dodavok v pripade OZE , resp. VRE = variable renewable energy:

Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons.

So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient?

That is the core of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS.

Strucna sumarizacia

- s jadrom je to (v sucanosti) lacnejsie (IPCC)
a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100 percent renewables

- a naopak, bez neho by to zatial bolo extremne drahe (transmission lines, storage), ak vobec uskutocnitelne

We do not yet have energy storage at anything approaching that scale (na vyrovnavanie kratkodobych vykyvov, aj dlhodobych vypadkov)

- v pripade, ze by sme sa predsalen rozpravali o scenari bez jadra, museli by sme ho vykompenzovat dramatickym narastom infrastruktury – to znamena vela novej prenosovej sustavy, vela novych kapacit na uchovanie a vela novych zdrojov dispatchable carbon-free power, tj. hydro, bioplyn, geotermalna energia a ine.

Even with tons of new transmission, we’ll still need a metric shit-ton of new storage. The US currently has energy storage capacity for around an hour of average electricity consumption. Only 15 weeks, six days, and 23 hours to go! Neviem preco prave 15 tyzdnov.

- co sa tyka toho, do akej miery dokazeme namodelovat prechod na rezim 100% energie z obnovitelnych zdrojov, autor vychadza zo ved.prace, ktora robila studiu uskutocnitelnosti 24 moznych scenarov = ako uskutocnitelny nebol hodnoteny ani jeden; najlepsie skore bolo 4/10
Toto by mala byt ona, je tu ale uvedenych 17 scenarov, tak snad http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.324/abstract

- vysledky (resp. kriteria) je mozne spochybnovat alebo obhajovat na zaklade toho, akej alternatívy si proponent (jadra alebo nejadra)

- tato studia je napr. uz optimistickejsia http://www.ren21.net/future-of-renewables/global-futures-report/ = 71% expertov veri, ze 100% renewables je realisticke

- rovnako je mozne sa pytat, do akej miery by sme mali citi byt v nasom rozhodovani determinovani tym, co nam sucasne modely hovoria o tom, co bude v (dalekej) buducnosti

Co su slabe miesta sucasnych modelov

1) Cost-benefit analyzy nie su dostatocne. V pripade robenia CBA pre scenare dekarbonizacie by sa mali zohladnovat aj ine faktory (efekty), nie len objem CO2 – ale aj napr. kvalita vzduchu, kvalita vody, dopad na biotopy, energeticka bezpecnost, socialne ne/benefity atd. Komplexne analyzy nas zrealnuju v „skutocnej“ hodnote/cene prechodu na obnovitelne zdroje.

2) Sucasne modely su zalozene na sucasnych cenach, ktore sa ale budu menit a teda modely zalozene na dnesnych cenach nam o 20 rokov budu nanic.

3) Nedokazu pocitat s novymi technologiami

A zavery

1) Nestabilne vykony OZE
- odbornici sa zhoduju, ze nestabilne vykony OZE su technickou vyzvou. Viac napr. tu http://www.vox.com/2015/6/19/8808545/wind-solar-grid-integration ci tu http://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11376196/california-grid-expansion

2) V sucanosti uz mame skusenosti s tym, ako zapojit az 60% VRE, ale USA celkovo ma podiel obnovitelnych zdrojov len 5% (jadro produkuje 20%). Prejst z 5% na 60% is going to be epic. Politicke a spolocenske bariery budu predstavovat vacsi problem ako technicke limity, minimalne v kratko a stredno dobom horizonte.

3) Zemny plyn. Najlahsou cestou v znizovani emisii a balancovani VRE na nasledujuce roky bude zemny plyn.

4) Nechat fungovat jadrove elektrárne co najdlhsie ako je to mozne