4 ms·

If you factor in cost of storage required to provide continuous power, then you get way more expensive and less reliable. Now this problem is solved by, surpris

If you factor in cost of storage required to provide continuous power, then you get way more expensive and less reliable. Now this problem is solved by, surprise, fossil fuels. [0] Ofcourse solar is cheaper when it is sunny, provider might even need to pay consumer to get them to consume. [1] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-negative-electricity-cost-2017-12/?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-nega...

Retric 8y ago
Continuous aka base-load power is considered a defect as it's not load following. You can load follow with nuclear but then it becomes ridiculously expensive. France gets around this largely by buying and selling to other countries, but that does not scale. Really, going 100% nuclear takes either massive over supply or large scale energy storage just like solar. Wind however can supplement solar while still costing less than nuclear and allowing you to more closely match the demand curve. A little peaking power allows you to avoid significant grid storage at very reasonable costs, and as I said fix transportation etc. PS: The need for grid electricity storage is overblown. Storing energy for more than 1 day means you very rarely use that stored energy making in non-viable. When you can have 2x as much solar and still only pay 4c/kwh that's pointless. Within the day it needs to compete with an over supply of energy most of the time.
- korantu 8y ago
  We are comparing two energy sources: one where output depends on the weather, and can go to near 0 another where output is strictly predictable but takes time to change. Option 2 have the problem of oversupply and undersupply. This forces either storage or fossil fuels in the picture. Option 1, however, only deals with oversupply, which does not require expensive mitigations. Not obvious why option 2 is preferable here
  - Retric 8y ago
    First, you can go off grid using 100% solar and a relatively small battery system as long as you get enough solar cells. The reason this works is your daytime input never drops to 0 and it's generally lower when you need less energy for AC systems. In terms of the grid, Wind and solar really can't go to 0 over large areas. The minimum vs maximum output shows high variance, but maximum output is largely irrelevant. Really what you care about is minimum vs average output and that's more narrow band than you might think. Even better by locating Wind / Solar you can more closely match your daily demand curve. Option 1, costs far more per kWh even if you can use every kWh, it's just get's worse from there. As it still needs over supply as power plants need occasional maintenance and the grid maximum and minimum demand over a year are wildly separated. You can setup maintenance around peak annual demands, but even then you will have occasional unexpected shutdowns.
    - korantu 8y ago
      Majority of energy consumption and population happens in cities / industry, so if we are talking significant co2 soonest, we should really focus on these. For large consumers like these to go solar/wind, you will have to really over-provision solar/wind so that minimum possible power output is still enough. (Calm night, anyone?) This looks highly inefficient and tough to predict. Whereas nuclear can and are already operating in load following mode routinely: [1] [1] http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-loa...
      - Retric 8y ago
        First, most city’s have a lot of space for solar and can easily import wind power. ~66w/m2 average over 24 hours is 66 MW per km^2 / the percentage covered in panels and really adds up. Wind really can't be calm for long periods over large areas because large areas will always have temperatures differences. It's like saying what if the sun does not rise tomorrow? If that's actually happening you have much bigger problems. Load following nuclear power plants become even more expensive. Not a huge deal on nuclear subs, but a major issue for civilian infrastructure. Just like energy storage they simply increase the cost of energy above alternatives. PS: Now if you could get nuclear without any form of subsides down to about 2.5c/kWh then running 24/7 or peaking power with average load's of around 30% down at around 8c/kWh then I would agree it had a major place. But, it's just no where near those numbers.

Retric 8y ago

Continuous aka base-load power is considered a defect as it's not load following. You can load follow with nuclear but then it becomes ridiculously expensive. France gets around this largely by buying and selling to other countries, but that does not scale. Really, going 100% nuclear takes either massive over supply or large scale energy storage just like solar. Wind however can supplement solar while still costing less than nuclear and allowing you to more closely match the demand curve. A little peaking power allows you to avoid significant grid storage at very reasonable costs, and as I said fix transportation etc. PS: The need for grid electricity storage is overblown. Storing energy for more than 1 day means you very rarely use that stored energy making in non-viable. When you can have 2x as much solar and still only pay 4c/kwh that's pointless. Within the day it needs to compete with an over supply of energy most of the time.

korantu 8y ago
We are comparing two energy sources: one where output depends on the weather, and can go to near 0 another where output is strictly predictable but takes time to change. Option 2 have the problem of oversupply and undersupply. This forces either storage or fossil fuels in the picture. Option 1, however, only deals with oversupply, which does not require expensive mitigations. Not obvious why option 2 is preferable here
- Retric 8y ago
  First, you can go off grid using 100% solar and a relatively small battery system as long as you get enough solar cells. The reason this works is your daytime input never drops to 0 and it's generally lower when you need less energy for AC systems. In terms of the grid, Wind and solar really can't go to 0 over large areas. The minimum vs maximum output shows high variance, but maximum output is largely irrelevant. Really what you care about is minimum vs average output and that's more narrow band than you might think. Even better by locating Wind / Solar you can more closely match your daily demand curve. Option 1, costs far more per kWh even if you can use every kWh, it's just get's worse from there. As it still needs over supply as power plants need occasional maintenance and the grid maximum and minimum demand over a year are wildly separated. You can setup maintenance around peak annual demands, but even then you will have occasional unexpected shutdowns.
  - korantu 8y ago
    Majority of energy consumption and population happens in cities / industry, so if we are talking significant co2 soonest, we should really focus on these. For large consumers like these to go solar/wind, you will have to really over-provision solar/wind so that minimum possible power output is still enough. (Calm night, anyone?) This looks highly inefficient and tough to predict. Whereas nuclear can and are already operating in load following mode routinely: [1] [1] http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-loa...
    - Retric 8y ago
      First, most city’s have a lot of space for solar and can easily import wind power. ~66w/m2 average over 24 hours is 66 MW per km^2 / the percentage covered in panels and really adds up. Wind really can't be calm for long periods over large areas because large areas will always have temperatures differences. It's like saying what if the sun does not rise tomorrow? If that's actually happening you have much bigger problems. Load following nuclear power plants become even more expensive. Not a huge deal on nuclear subs, but a major issue for civilian infrastructure. Just like energy storage they simply increase the cost of energy above alternatives. PS: Now if you could get nuclear without any form of subsides down to about 2.5c/kWh then running 24/7 or peaking power with average load's of around 30% down at around 8c/kWh then I would agree it had a major place. But, it's just no where near those numbers.