2 ms·
It's never clear what you are really arguing for. Why argue A>B and B>C if all you are trying to say is that A>C? Solar with long-term chemical energy storag
by baking 7y ago
It's never clear what you are really arguing for. Why argue A>B and B>C if all you are trying to say is that A>C?
Solar with long-term chemical energy storage should play a huge role, but I think it is too soon to say if one will push out the other or if fission will stage a resurgence. A lot depends on incentives to phase out fossil fuels. If natural gas produced electricity remains the cheapest option the development of all energy alternatives will be effected.
If you are arguing that fusion will never compete economically with natural gas, you may be right in the short-term but in that case there may not be a long-term.
- pfdietz 7y agoBecause that's how you show A > C. Directly comparing fusion and PV would be difficult, but one can compare fusion and fission (because they share many of the same elements) and one can compare fission and PV (because they are directly competing in the actual market). Fission provides a reality check on believing projections unmoored from empirical feedback. I would like to see the same methodology for fusion cost projections applied to fission, to see if the projections are anywhere close to what the plants actually cost to build in the real world.
- baking 7y agoHonestly, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Average cost overrun for US nuclear fission plants was 207 percent, primarily due to mid-construction revisions and additional regulation. [https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-nuclear.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/91x... page 17] But what you seem to be talking about are cost projections for proposed pilot plants. It is possible that commercial fusion plants will have construction cost overruns but most modern fission and fusion proposals incorporate modular construction to limit the problem of one-of cost overruns.
- pfdietz 7y ago> but most modern fission and fusion proposals incorporate modular construction to limit the problem of one-of cost overruns. Let's see how that works out, friends! "Modular by Design The AP1000 plant has been designed to make use of modern, modular-construction techniques. The design incorporates vendor-designed skids and equipment packages, as well as large, multi-ton structural modules and special-equipment modules. Modularization allows construction tasks that were traditionally performed in sequence to be completed in parallel." Oh dear. Modularization doesn't seem to have helped Westinghouse at all. Sorry about the bankruptcy, Toshiba!
- baking 7y agoAre you saying that fusion plants will face the same regulatory issues that fission plants experience? Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
- pfdietz 7y agoThe problem wasn't regulation, it was mismanagement. The complexity of building the plant simply overwhelmed the firms involved. Fusion reactors would be even more complex. I think they're well beyond a practical upper bound for complexity of practical energy sources. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...
- baking 7y agoWhat do you see as providing the majority of baseline load by 2060?
- pfdietz 7y agoThere will be no place for high levelized cost baseload generators. There will be intermittent sources, short term storage, and various chemical fuels (natural gas with carbon capture, biomass, hydrogen) for long term variability. Additionally, overproduction w. curtailment, dispatchable demand, and long distance transmission be used to ameliorate variability of supply. By 2060, or likely well before, if solar continues down its historical learning curve, solar should be absurdly cheap, so cheap that resistive heat will be cheaper than burning any fossil fuel. We might even see artificial geothermal, where excess power is just dumped into heating rocks and water underground.