3 ms·

Storage is talked about in the similar ways as molten salt reactor. It is a nice concept but I don't know any nation which energy grid uses it. It would be gre

by belorn 8y ago

Storage is talked about in the similar ways as molten salt reactor. It is a nice concept but I don't know any nation which energy grid uses it. It would be great if Germany replaced all their natural gas power plants in favor of storage. It is the perfect solution and it would end the nuclear power discussion rather quickly if nations would actually start to use it rather then building more gas based power plants. I am in the political camp that says we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short time.

mimixco 8y ago
Banning fossil fuels would also set society back 100 years. They're literally the basis of all of modern life. I don't think you'll get many takers for that argument.
- newswriter99 8y ago
  This is the short version of my argument.
cesarb 8y ago
> Storage is talked about in the similar ways as molten salt reactor. It is a nice concept but I don't know any nation which energy grid uses it. Wikipedia says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
- belorn 8y ago
  Thanks for the link. Compared to salt reactors which only holds a few experimental 100MW generators in the world, it seems that storage in comparison is clearly ahead in development with the largest producing around 3GW at peak. In order to replace fossil fuels in the US they would need to build about a million new ones of the current biggest version, through 11hrs capacity sounds low in regard to seasonal changes. They also need to build a matching number of renewable power plants to fill the storage, plus some overhead since storage use more energy that they produce. It is definitively plausible solution which I have nothing against. Looking at the US grid I interpret it to mean that storage is currently responsible for less than 0.1%.
dv_dt 8y ago
Storage is not there generically for seasonal power demand. But it's used in national grids for balancing, and short demand distribution already out competing the previous gold standard of natural gas peaking plants. The costs are dropping following a fairly predictable volume manufacturing expansion curve - and that ramp up is much more viable than the very specialized logistics support needed for expanded nuclear plant construction. While I'm very skeptical of fossil fuels with carbon capture being any sort of all-around solution, for seasonal use - nat gas storage with fuel cells or turbines with carbon captured outputs seem like a possible mid-line seasonal solution.
newswriter99 8y ago
>we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short time, That's not how public opinion, politics or economics works and if you're posting on HN you're educated enough to know better. First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? Is that going to be through a UN agreement or are you going to convince developing nations like China and India that they shouldn't use fossil fuels to catch up even though the rest of the world got to do so during the industrial revolution? Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? Are we going door-to-door letting consumers know that they're dum-dum children and we know best, or do we just use some executive orders and imminent domain to force it down their throat? Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands all the world over considering it takes a decade to build a nuclear power plant? Renewables? Ok, so how are you going to generate sufficient electricity from renewable sources in dark, windless places WITHOUT using fossil fuels? Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? Because last time I checked you need quite a few plastics and petrochemicals to manufacture the electronics. Not to mention the massive amount of concrete needed in the construction of wind turbines and other facilities, which of course absorbs oxygen like a sponge.
- belorn 8y ago
  > First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? A good start would be EU. Progressive changes would look like a resolution to reduce the use of coal in power production (already exist to some degree), and then continue by putting goals like max 30% of energy production from fossil fuels by year 2030, then 20% by 2040, and a goal for full stop at hopefully the end up this century. The general problem however is that the we might not have enough time to slowly phase out polluting power production in time to reach the Paris Agreement. If we ask why china or India would agree, the same question could be asked why they signed the Paris agreement. > Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? If the chose is between raising sea levels, expanding deserts, melted ice caps, mass extinction and other rather nasty scenario from global warming, or just putting a bunch of spent nuclear material in a miles long deep hole under a mountain, the choice seems pretty simple from a public relation perspective. Nuclear waste that is currently pilling up is bad but putting more pollution in the atmosphere is looking right now as being worse. The choice is choosing which of the two problems we prefer to have. > Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands Parent comment said they wanted to use storage and renewable, as in their view that is the cheapest way to solve the issue. Alternative we could start building those nuclear power plants and hope they can be built faster than the global warming crisis will unfold. The third alternative seems to keep burning fossil fuels while telling our self that it is fine as long we also use some renewable once in a while. > Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? I think you are interpreting my statement a bit too literal. No change happens overnight. The goal of net zero emissions is right now an impossibility. A lot of climate research however says that we need to get there yesterday. How we combine the reality of pollution with the practical reality of maintaining supply in the energy grid is currently unsolved.
imtringued 8y ago
Germany doesn't really use it's gas power plants... Most of them are sitting idle because they are peaker plants and coal employs more workers so replacing one with the other is a nonstarter.

by belorn 8y ago

mimixco 8y ago

Banning fossil fuels would also set society back 100 years. They're literally the basis of all of modern life. I don't think you'll get many takers for that argument.

newswriter99 8y ago
This is the short version of my argument.

cesarb 8y ago

> Storage is talked about in the similar ways as molten salt reactor. It is a nice concept but I don't know any nation which energy grid uses it. Wikipedia says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

belorn 8y ago
Thanks for the link. Compared to salt reactors which only holds a few experimental 100MW generators in the world, it seems that storage in comparison is clearly ahead in development with the largest producing around 3GW at peak. In order to replace fossil fuels in the US they would need to build about a million new ones of the current biggest version, through 11hrs capacity sounds low in regard to seasonal changes. They also need to build a matching number of renewable power plants to fill the storage, plus some overhead since storage use more energy that they produce. It is definitively plausible solution which I have nothing against. Looking at the US grid I interpret it to mean that storage is currently responsible for less than 0.1%.

dv_dt 8y ago

Storage is not there generically for seasonal power demand. But it's used in national grids for balancing, and short demand distribution already out competing the previous gold standard of natural gas peaking plants. The costs are dropping following a fairly predictable volume manufacturing expansion curve - and that ramp up is much more viable than the very specialized logistics support needed for expanded nuclear plant construction. While I'm very skeptical of fossil fuels with carbon capture being any sort of all-around solution, for seasonal use - nat gas storage with fuel cells or turbines with carbon captured outputs seem like a possible mid-line seasonal solution.

newswriter99 8y ago

>we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short time, That's not how public opinion, politics or economics works and if you're posting on HN you're educated enough to know better. First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? Is that going to be through a UN agreement or are you going to convince developing nations like China and India that they shouldn't use fossil fuels to catch up even though the rest of the world got to do so during the industrial revolution? Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? Are we going door-to-door letting consumers know that they're dum-dum children and we know best, or do we just use some executive orders and imminent domain to force it down their throat? Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands all the world over considering it takes a decade to build a nuclear power plant? Renewables? Ok, so how are you going to generate sufficient electricity from renewable sources in dark, windless places WITHOUT using fossil fuels? Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? Because last time I checked you need quite a few plastics and petrochemicals to manufacture the electronics. Not to mention the massive amount of concrete needed in the construction of wind turbines and other facilities, which of course absorbs oxygen like a sponge.

belorn 8y ago
> First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? A good start would be EU. Progressive changes would look like a resolution to reduce the use of coal in power production (already exist to some degree), and then continue by putting goals like max 30% of energy production from fossil fuels by year 2030, then 20% by 2040, and a goal for full stop at hopefully the end up this century. The general problem however is that the we might not have enough time to slowly phase out polluting power production in time to reach the Paris Agreement. If we ask why china or India would agree, the same question could be asked why they signed the Paris agreement. > Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? If the chose is between raising sea levels, expanding deserts, melted ice caps, mass extinction and other rather nasty scenario from global warming, or just putting a bunch of spent nuclear material in a miles long deep hole under a mountain, the choice seems pretty simple from a public relation perspective. Nuclear waste that is currently pilling up is bad but putting more pollution in the atmosphere is looking right now as being worse. The choice is choosing which of the two problems we prefer to have. > Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands Parent comment said they wanted to use storage and renewable, as in their view that is the cheapest way to solve the issue. Alternative we could start building those nuclear power plants and hope they can be built faster than the global warming crisis will unfold. The third alternative seems to keep burning fossil fuels while telling our self that it is fine as long we also use some renewable once in a while. > Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? I think you are interpreting my statement a bit too literal. No change happens overnight. The goal of net zero emissions is right now an impossibility. A lot of climate research however says that we need to get there yesterday. How we combine the reality of pollution with the practical reality of maintaining supply in the energy grid is currently unsolved.

imtringued 8y ago

Germany doesn't really use it's gas power plants... Most of them are sitting idle because they are peaker plants and coal employs more workers so replacing one with the other is a nonstarter.