6 ms·

> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. To make those a reasonable base you need to add enough storage to keep eve

by josefx 8y ago

> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. To make those a reasonable base you need to add enough storage to keep everything working even when your current weather does not meet the energy demand. I think setting up that storage is currently going to be the biggest cost factor.

assblaster 8y ago
When you factor in storage costs, how do solar and wind compare to alternatives?
- Retric 8y ago
  Still generally cheaper. People regularly go off grid solar for less than the cost of grid electricity over the lifetime of their system. They save on the grid distribution system and overhead, but lose out on vast economy of scale. Peaking power plants also tend to be more cost effective than large scale grid storage. Having excess capacity also vastly reduces the need to storage. Existing investments complicate the issue, but falling prices for both solar and battery systems regularly change the equation and this shift is only going in one direction.
- ufmace 8y ago
  We don't know, because we've never built grid-scale energy storage.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Currently, solar that has 3-4 hours of output at 50% of peak primary solar outbut, is about $35-$40/MWh in Colorado, Nevada, and I think even Indiana had bids in that ballpark. This is between 1/5 to 1/2 the cost of nuclear, depending on who you believe for nuclear's costs. Storing a MWh probably costs around $80-$150 currently. Why so little storage? It's not really needed at the scale of projects that are being planned, and storage gets cheaper every year. So let's say we could start building a nuclear plant and get it done in 10 years (which is highly speculative, but let's give nuclear the benefit of the doubt). What are the costs going to be 10 years from now? Or more importantly, what are costs going to be 30 years from now? Because the storage lasts 10-15 years, so you get to replace it with cheaper tech at that point, whereas with nuclear you've locked in your costs for the next 60 years. This is why no sane entity wants to build nuclear, unless they are ideologically motivated. There are some nuclear startups that may make nuclear cheaper, and less risky to build, but they are still startups without functioning prototypes or manufacturing facilities. By the time they start production, the utility will be ready to replace any batteries that get deployed on the grid today, so one may as well start deploying wind/solar + storage. And add more time of use rate plans so that energy is used efficiently.
Retric 8y ago
Base load power is not a useful feature. To follow the demand curve you generally what to turn massive amounts of production off at specific points in the day, base load is simply what you keep running during those periods. Nuclear power plants for example where known to be hard to throttle which was a significant design issue. Historically, the tradeoff is worth it as the cost per kWh was less, but again not a useful feature and you would expect renuables to kill off other forms of base load power based on price.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
  I used to be a reactor operator and never saw any evidence they were hard to throttle. That's why they are used for warship propulsion: loads in battle are not predictable by their nature, what with changes in course, catapult launches, etc.
  - hwillis 8y ago
    You're both right- technically, nuclear reactors are on of the fastest-ramping sources available. A reactor in SCRAM can drop down to <10% of full output in minutes, and many reactors are capable of running at continuously at reduced power. However, zero reactors are capable of doing so economically. The cost of a nuclear plant is in its construction, upkeep, and staff. Those costs are the same at 110% and 30% output, but revenue isnt. In order to turn a profit a nuclear plant needs to be running at 80%+, 24/7. Ultimately that means nuclear needs batteries almost as much as solar and wind, since only ~30% of grid energy is constant 24/7. This should be no surprise- all three technologies have nearly no reliance on fuel, and are funded pretty much upfront. If you have no marginal costs then your only rational option is 100% output.
    - mdavis6890 8y ago
      There is a flaw in your reasoning: By definition if a plant needs to be throttled then it's surplus power generation has negative (or zero) utility/value and therefore does not contribute to it's profitability whether it's running or not. Throttling the plant doesn't reduce it's profitability, since the power it would product at that point has no value - that's why you need to throttle it.

by josefx 8y ago

assblaster 8y ago

When you factor in storage costs, how do solar and wind compare to alternatives?

Retric 8y ago
Still generally cheaper. People regularly go off grid solar for less than the cost of grid electricity over the lifetime of their system. They save on the grid distribution system and overhead, but lose out on vast economy of scale. Peaking power plants also tend to be more cost effective than large scale grid storage. Having excess capacity also vastly reduces the need to storage. Existing investments complicate the issue, but falling prices for both solar and battery systems regularly change the equation and this shift is only going in one direction.
ufmace 8y ago
We don't know, because we've never built grid-scale energy storage.
epistasis 8y ago
Currently, solar that has 3-4 hours of output at 50% of peak primary solar outbut, is about $35-$40/MWh in Colorado, Nevada, and I think even Indiana had bids in that ballpark. This is between 1/5 to 1/2 the cost of nuclear, depending on who you believe for nuclear's costs. Storing a MWh probably costs around $80-$150 currently. Why so little storage? It's not really needed at the scale of projects that are being planned, and storage gets cheaper every year. So let's say we could start building a nuclear plant and get it done in 10 years (which is highly speculative, but let's give nuclear the benefit of the doubt). What are the costs going to be 10 years from now? Or more importantly, what are costs going to be 30 years from now? Because the storage lasts 10-15 years, so you get to replace it with cheaper tech at that point, whereas with nuclear you've locked in your costs for the next 60 years. This is why no sane entity wants to build nuclear, unless they are ideologically motivated. There are some nuclear startups that may make nuclear cheaper, and less risky to build, but they are still startups without functioning prototypes or manufacturing facilities. By the time they start production, the utility will be ready to replace any batteries that get deployed on the grid today, so one may as well start deploying wind/solar + storage. And add more time of use rate plans so that energy is used efficiently.

Retric 8y ago

Base load power is not a useful feature. To follow the demand curve you generally what to turn massive amounts of production off at specific points in the day, base load is simply what you keep running during those periods. Nuclear power plants for example where known to be hard to throttle which was a significant design issue. Historically, the tradeoff is worth it as the cost per kWh was less, but again not a useful feature and you would expect renuables to kill off other forms of base load power based on price.

FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
I used to be a reactor operator and never saw any evidence they were hard to throttle. That's why they are used for warship propulsion: loads in battle are not predictable by their nature, what with changes in course, catapult launches, etc.
- hwillis 8y ago
  You're both right- technically, nuclear reactors are on of the fastest-ramping sources available. A reactor in SCRAM can drop down to <10% of full output in minutes, and many reactors are capable of running at continuously at reduced power. However, zero reactors are capable of doing so economically. The cost of a nuclear plant is in its construction, upkeep, and staff. Those costs are the same at 110% and 30% output, but revenue isnt. In order to turn a profit a nuclear plant needs to be running at 80%+, 24/7. Ultimately that means nuclear needs batteries almost as much as solar and wind, since only ~30% of grid energy is constant 24/7. This should be no surprise- all three technologies have nearly no reliance on fuel, and are funded pretty much upfront. If you have no marginal costs then your only rational option is 100% output.
  - mdavis6890 8y ago
    There is a flaw in your reasoning: By definition if a plant needs to be throttled then it's surplus power generation has negative (or zero) utility/value and therefore does not contribute to it's profitability whether it's running or not. Throttling the plant doesn't reduce it's profitability, since the power it would product at that point has no value - that's why you need to throttle it.