7 ms·

"renewables' are also highly subsidized" Only this not true any more. Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies: https://www.yout

"renewables' are also highly subsidized" Only this not true any more. Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU Even before that the subsidies for solar have been dwarfed by the subsidies that are in place for nuclear power. Recently in Germany the nuclear companies' lobbyists managed to get rif of the problem of end storage of nuclear waste by shifting that burden to the general public. Great job!

robryk 10y ago
> Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies (...) // I haven't watched the video. Would love to see a text version thereof if it exists. Is it per unit of power that can be produced under optimal conditions or per unit of power averaged over a year? Note that half of the time in a year it's dark, so in order to produce the same amount of energy in a year you need a solar power plant with at least 2x power rating of a power plant that can operate continuously. Does this include the cost (monetary (capital) and in additional energy that has to be generated due to storage losses) of storing the energy over periods of darkness and inclement weather?
- spangry 10y ago
  It gets worse. Unless we develop viable (and affordable) grid-level battery technology, the intermittency problem of renewables makes most of them a non-starter from a cost perspective. To cover 'always on' baseload demand, you need about 5-6 time that amount of maximum generating capacity, optimally geographically dispersed to ensure at least one or a few are producing sufficient power while the others are essentially 'off'. This also means you need 5-6 times the amount of transmission infrastructure compared to if you have centralised power generation that can be rapidly scaled up and down. Burning coal is one such solution (obviously a terrible one given climate change). Gas is good for intermittent 'peaker' plants, but it's not exactly cheap nor co2 free. Contrary to what's being said above, I think fission absolutely must be explored to avoid a climate catastrophe. Our current fission reactor tech is basically the same tech we had in the 50s and 60s, which manages about 3% fuel efficiency (mostly due to the use of solid fuels). Despite this, it's still at least 'in the ballpark' cost-wise, and also the second safest form of power generation, according to the IPCC, over its entire life-cycle (from mining to waste disposal and remediation). Incidentally, hydro is the first. If we could invest even just a little bit of money into furthering fission research, we could very well end up with an abundant, cheap and safe method of generating baseload power. Or we could yammer on about the cost of 'political capital' and accept a much higher probability of extinction because a section of the population are either misinformed or just flat out ignorant. Yeah, let's do that.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Unless we develop viable (and affordable) grid-level battery technology Do you think grid-level energy storage needs to be batteries, as opposed to other forms? If so, why?
    - Crito 10y ago
      There is only so much pumped hydro storage you can make...
      - gnud 10y ago
        Pumped hydro seems simplest, and we often have the power plant already in place. But temperature differential storage, pressure differential storage, and creating hydrogen all seems to scale better to me.
        rplst8 10y ago
        I've read some things about pumped hydro. The losses reduce efficiency and the amount of water you need to pump is pretty unbelievably large.
    - spangry 10y ago
      Not at all, and sorry I guess I misspoke. Whatever works: pumping water up hill, spinning flywheels etc. all sound fine to me. It's simply a question of whether it meets current energy demand, environmental impact, and cost. Come to think of it, I've only ever looked at the per KW hour cost of batteries (lead-acid seems to be the clear winner). You wouldn't happen to have references for other energy storage methods?
      - grzm 10y ago
        Other than Wikipedia, no; I was hoping you would. That's why I asked. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage I think it's an interesting field though.
- jsilence 10y ago
  The german term "Stromgestehungskosten" is a well defined standing term for the price you have to pay for power generation. This price has come down to 5ct/kWh and the estimation is that these costs will be undercut in the upcoming solar projects. So the "Stromgestehungskosten" for solar going to go down even more. Regarding storage and distribution the video reports on a current project in Utrecht/Netherlands where they are combining the untapped storage capacity of electrical cars. As a Tesla owner you can set the amount of milage you will need the next day and the rest of the capacity can/will be used for storage and distribution. Imagine that, if demand is high and your Tesla is charged you can take the bike and sell the electricity for profit. So the Tesla might pay for itself over time. Regarding potential over capacity by solar generation I think the electric car revolition is just about to start. There will be huge demand for electricity in the near future. On the contrary to the costs of storage and distribution, which are often cited and remarked upon in discussions about renewables, the cost of enviromental damage is also not included in the power generation costs. If you factor in the value of the land that became virtually unusable by fukushima, I guess the power generation costs will unlikely be as low as the are presented to be. I vaguely remember figures from someone who did the math for nuclear, this person also subtracted the nuclear industry subsidies, and I think it was 69$/kWh. Yes, sixty nine dollars per kilowatt hour. I wish I had saved that reference. I can not vouch or this value, it is only from the back of my head.
  - spangry 10y ago
    I couldn't agree more with your point about electricity car take-up. I've made the same point in the past but it's always gotten a lukewarm reception. In my mind, it's probably our best chance of achieving sufficient scale grid energy storage. It's also kinda brilliant on Elon Musk's part: he's selling people these 'mobile grid batteries' while also being super long solar.
    - jsilence 10y ago
      And the cars are anything but boring golf carts. A stigma electric cars have had for a long time. These might even get you laid.
Twisell 10y ago
Thanks for the ressource I'll definitely have a look. However the fact that it's price competitive still don't imply that it's enough to counter climate change. In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. Nuclear have a lots of cons, but the one of the pro is that we know them, while renewables are mostly untested at scale that approach current global electricity demand. (PS: Indeed lowering electric need is also a safe way to to reach the goal and should be the top priority)
- ludston 10y ago
  > In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. In the worst case scenario, all of the nuclear reactors simultaneously explode (because more earthquakes), raining down a radioactive armageddon on the hordes of screaming peasants below.
  - roryisok 10y ago
    There was a thread about nuclear power on here during the year, and some commenter had crunched the numbers on how many nuclear power plants we'd need to fully power the planet. It was in the tens of thousands. Even in the best case scenario, at this density we'd be looking at a Fukushima style disasters occurring regularly, not just every 30 years. That's best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that it gets more cloudy and our solar doesn't work as well. But lets not forget solar power still works on a cloudy day, just not as well
    - jsilence 10y ago
      Depending on the type of cell and on the type/severity of overcast, power generation might even be better than that of bright unhindered sunshine.
    - Hondor 10y ago
      What's wrong with regular Fukushima scale disasters? They're not very deadly. We already have frequent mining disasters in the coal industry and don't care about that. If anything, nuclear power needs less safety to reduce costs and become competitive. For some reason people are still scared of radiation even after seeing how harmless Chernobyl turned out to be compared to predictions.
musha68k 10y ago
I don't even want to know what nuclear waste disposal projects like "Onkalo" cost us over their corresponding lifetimes... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...

robryk 10y ago

> Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies (...) // I haven't watched the video. Would love to see a text version thereof if it exists. Is it per unit of power that can be produced under optimal conditions or per unit of power averaged over a year? Note that half of the time in a year it's dark, so in order to produce the same amount of energy in a year you need a solar power plant with at least 2x power rating of a power plant that can operate continuously. Does this include the cost (monetary (capital) and in additional energy that has to be generated due to storage losses) of storing the energy over periods of darkness and inclement weather?

spangry 10y ago
It gets worse. Unless we develop viable (and affordable) grid-level battery technology, the intermittency problem of renewables makes most of them a non-starter from a cost perspective. To cover 'always on' baseload demand, you need about 5-6 time that amount of maximum generating capacity, optimally geographically dispersed to ensure at least one or a few are producing sufficient power while the others are essentially 'off'. This also means you need 5-6 times the amount of transmission infrastructure compared to if you have centralised power generation that can be rapidly scaled up and down. Burning coal is one such solution (obviously a terrible one given climate change). Gas is good for intermittent 'peaker' plants, but it's not exactly cheap nor co2 free. Contrary to what's being said above, I think fission absolutely must be explored to avoid a climate catastrophe. Our current fission reactor tech is basically the same tech we had in the 50s and 60s, which manages about 3% fuel efficiency (mostly due to the use of solid fuels). Despite this, it's still at least 'in the ballpark' cost-wise, and also the second safest form of power generation, according to the IPCC, over its entire life-cycle (from mining to waste disposal and remediation). Incidentally, hydro is the first. If we could invest even just a little bit of money into furthering fission research, we could very well end up with an abundant, cheap and safe method of generating baseload power. Or we could yammer on about the cost of 'political capital' and accept a much higher probability of extinction because a section of the population are either misinformed or just flat out ignorant. Yeah, let's do that.
- grzm 10y ago
  Unless we develop viable (and affordable) grid-level battery technology Do you think grid-level energy storage needs to be batteries, as opposed to other forms? If so, why?
  - Crito 10y ago
    There is only so much pumped hydro storage you can make...
    - gnud 10y ago
      Pumped hydro seems simplest, and we often have the power plant already in place. But temperature differential storage, pressure differential storage, and creating hydrogen all seems to scale better to me.
      - rplst8 10y ago
        I've read some things about pumped hydro. The losses reduce efficiency and the amount of water you need to pump is pretty unbelievably large.
  - spangry 10y ago
    Not at all, and sorry I guess I misspoke. Whatever works: pumping water up hill, spinning flywheels etc. all sound fine to me. It's simply a question of whether it meets current energy demand, environmental impact, and cost. Come to think of it, I've only ever looked at the per KW hour cost of batteries (lead-acid seems to be the clear winner). You wouldn't happen to have references for other energy storage methods?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Other than Wikipedia, no; I was hoping you would. That's why I asked. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage I think it's an interesting field though.
jsilence 10y ago
The german term "Stromgestehungskosten" is a well defined standing term for the price you have to pay for power generation. This price has come down to 5ct/kWh and the estimation is that these costs will be undercut in the upcoming solar projects. So the "Stromgestehungskosten" for solar going to go down even more. Regarding storage and distribution the video reports on a current project in Utrecht/Netherlands where they are combining the untapped storage capacity of electrical cars. As a Tesla owner you can set the amount of milage you will need the next day and the rest of the capacity can/will be used for storage and distribution. Imagine that, if demand is high and your Tesla is charged you can take the bike and sell the electricity for profit. So the Tesla might pay for itself over time. Regarding potential over capacity by solar generation I think the electric car revolition is just about to start. There will be huge demand for electricity in the near future. On the contrary to the costs of storage and distribution, which are often cited and remarked upon in discussions about renewables, the cost of enviromental damage is also not included in the power generation costs. If you factor in the value of the land that became virtually unusable by fukushima, I guess the power generation costs will unlikely be as low as the are presented to be. I vaguely remember figures from someone who did the math for nuclear, this person also subtracted the nuclear industry subsidies, and I think it was 69$/kWh. Yes, sixty nine dollars per kilowatt hour. I wish I had saved that reference. I can not vouch or this value, it is only from the back of my head.
- spangry 10y ago
  I couldn't agree more with your point about electricity car take-up. I've made the same point in the past but it's always gotten a lukewarm reception. In my mind, it's probably our best chance of achieving sufficient scale grid energy storage. It's also kinda brilliant on Elon Musk's part: he's selling people these 'mobile grid batteries' while also being super long solar.
  - jsilence 10y ago
    And the cars are anything but boring golf carts. A stigma electric cars have had for a long time. These might even get you laid.

Twisell 10y ago

Thanks for the ressource I'll definitely have a look. However the fact that it's price competitive still don't imply that it's enough to counter climate change. In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. Nuclear have a lots of cons, but the one of the pro is that we know them, while renewables are mostly untested at scale that approach current global electricity demand. (PS: Indeed lowering electric need is also a safe way to to reach the goal and should be the top priority)

ludston 10y ago
> In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. In the worst case scenario, all of the nuclear reactors simultaneously explode (because more earthquakes), raining down a radioactive armageddon on the hordes of screaming peasants below.
- roryisok 10y ago
  There was a thread about nuclear power on here during the year, and some commenter had crunched the numbers on how many nuclear power plants we'd need to fully power the planet. It was in the tens of thousands. Even in the best case scenario, at this density we'd be looking at a Fukushima style disasters occurring regularly, not just every 30 years. That's best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that it gets more cloudy and our solar doesn't work as well. But lets not forget solar power still works on a cloudy day, just not as well
  - jsilence 10y ago
    Depending on the type of cell and on the type/severity of overcast, power generation might even be better than that of bright unhindered sunshine.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    What's wrong with regular Fukushima scale disasters? They're not very deadly. We already have frequent mining disasters in the coal industry and don't care about that. If anything, nuclear power needs less safety to reduce costs and become competitive. For some reason people are still scared of radiation even after seeing how harmless Chernobyl turned out to be compared to predictions.

musha68k 10y ago

I don't even want to know what nuclear waste disposal projects like "Onkalo" cost us over their corresponding lifetimes... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...