5 ms·

I agree that storage really isn't up to seasonal demand variation yet. But I also don't think we should take out current nuclear and should run current plants t

by dv_dt 7y ago

I agree that storage really isn't up to seasonal demand variation yet. But I also don't think we should take out current nuclear and should run current plants to end of life - even extending their life where practical. But I strongly think that project success/completion data points to new nuclear plants being a poor investment financially and time wise for carbon suppression vs our other options. I am a bit curious why running a wood fired stove in the winter doesn't meet your heating needs in a modern well-insulated low carbon home? We need a set of different, possibly non-uniform solutions. For heat, why not store power by growing forests in the spring/summer, and burning wood in the winter? Not high-tech I know, but some of the automatic pellet feed systems are very low touch.

Loughla 7y ago
>why not store power by growing forests in the spring/summer, and burning wood in the winter? I honestly don't mean for this to be snarky, but I know it's going to sound like it is. (1) How much property do you believe one home would take to heat using trees? (2) How quickly do you think trees can grow, barring some horrific invasive species? (3) Why do you think we moved away from this model in the past? Spoiler, I know these answers for my area of the US (Northern Midwest), I'm just fascinated to see why you would ask that question. Because it's ridiculous as a solution.
- cygx 7y ago
  Note that this is not a hypothetical situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel
  - Loughla 7y ago
    I'm aware of pellet burning stoves. There are also smoke recyclers and burners for home stoves which make them even more efficient. But in what way are those carbon neutral? (which is what I thought was the point of this entire thing) And that doesn't answer my questions.
    - cygx 7y ago
      And that doesn't answer my questions. It wasn't supposed to do so, but raise awareness that your questions are already highly relevant in the present and not just a hypothetical future: The UK consumes something on the order of 8 million tons of wood pellets per year. The carbon footprint depends on the source of the wood (eg replacing naturally grown with farmed trees is not a carbon neutral activity). Shipping has to be considered as well. Uninformed layperson that I am, I'd guess power-to-gas would be a superior solution, but it's pretty expensive right now...
- dv_dt 7y ago
  So what are the numbers for the Northern Midwest, and why are they ridiculous? If there's a report link that break down the model, I love that kind of reading.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    A study found that to 70% renewable penetration in Minnesota, it's cheaper to just overinstall solar and curtail when it produces too much, rather than add storage. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-cheaper-to-curtail-solar-than-to-add-storage/546467/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-ch... In that scenario, there will be strong incentive to find uses for the low capacity factor very cheap (nearly free) power the curtailment implies. For example, very cheap mediocre efficiency membraneless electrolyzers could make hydrogen. Also in that scenario, there is no place for high capital cost baseload sources, as the price will crash too often for them to be profitable.

by dv_dt 7y ago

Loughla 7y ago

>why not store power by growing forests in the spring/summer, and burning wood in the winter? I honestly don't mean for this to be snarky, but I know it's going to sound like it is. (1) How much property do you believe one home would take to heat using trees? (2) How quickly do you think trees can grow, barring some horrific invasive species? (3) Why do you think we moved away from this model in the past? Spoiler, I know these answers for my area of the US (Northern Midwest), I'm just fascinated to see why you would ask that question. Because it's ridiculous as a solution.

cygx 7y ago
Note that this is not a hypothetical situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel
- Loughla 7y ago
  I'm aware of pellet burning stoves. There are also smoke recyclers and burners for home stoves which make them even more efficient. But in what way are those carbon neutral? (which is what I thought was the point of this entire thing) And that doesn't answer my questions.
  - cygx 7y ago
    And that doesn't answer my questions. It wasn't supposed to do so, but raise awareness that your questions are already highly relevant in the present and not just a hypothetical future: The UK consumes something on the order of 8 million tons of wood pellets per year. The carbon footprint depends on the source of the wood (eg replacing naturally grown with farmed trees is not a carbon neutral activity). Shipping has to be considered as well. Uninformed layperson that I am, I'd guess power-to-gas would be a superior solution, but it's pretty expensive right now...
dv_dt 7y ago
So what are the numbers for the Northern Midwest, and why are they ridiculous? If there's a report link that break down the model, I love that kind of reading.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  A study found that to 70% renewable penetration in Minnesota, it's cheaper to just overinstall solar and curtail when it produces too much, rather than add storage. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-cheaper-to-curtail-solar-than-to-add-storage/546467/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-ch... In that scenario, there will be strong incentive to find uses for the low capacity factor very cheap (nearly free) power the curtailment implies. For example, very cheap mediocre efficiency membraneless electrolyzers could make hydrogen. Also in that scenario, there is no place for high capital cost baseload sources, as the price will crash too often for them to be profitable.