6 ms·

I've had this argument so many times in that last month... renewables outside of hydro are just not viable as baseline power until batteries improve cost and de

I've had this argument so many times in that last month... renewables outside of hydro are just not viable as baseline power until batteries improve cost and density by several orders of magnitudes. Nuclear fission is really the only choice we have right now. We can't avoid climate change by relying on technologies like fusion power & next gen batteries that haven't even been invented yet, let alone mass manufactured.

hntrader 6y ago
Maybe you should write an article about that, and put it up on HN, given that it's such a common point of contention/misunderstanding.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  There are people more knowledgeable then me who have made these points better than I could, I'd recommend Vaclav Smil as a great source on this. The problem is that his material makes for grim reading, and I think many people researching this subject are drawn to techno optimism even when the numbers don't add up because the subject as a whole is so grim.
  - samvher 6y ago
    Do you have specific recommendations among his writings?
    - Hammershaft 6y ago
      http://vaclavsmil.com/2017/05/08/energy-and-civilization-a-history/ http://vaclavsmil.com/2017/05/08/energy-and-civilization-a-h... I also recommend looking through his list of books on the sidebar.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
  The whole "baseline" thing is partly a myth, and there is an article about that https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...
- enaaem 6y ago
  This is a good one http://www.withouthotair.com http://www.withouthotair.com. It looks at whole energy plans. Not just wether technology X is cool.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Isn't that the site that argues the UK cannot get by with renewables, but assumes large amounts of biomass are needed to be grown locally?
    - philipkglass 6y ago
      It's from 2007 and will not get an update since the author has died. I do like it for taking a quantitative approach even though the assumptions used are increasingly outdated. Here's the summary page where the author asked if the UK could supply its energy needs from renewables alone: http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml The answer was "not quite." However, he assumed that utility scale solar farms would be using 10% efficient panels. 20% are now widely available. So let's make these two quick edits: - Assume that solar farms provide double the energy from doubled panel efficiency. - Drop biomass, because it's unneeded with better solar farms. With these changes the renewable energy supply of 206 kWh/person/day exceeds modeled demand of 195 kWh/person/day. Making some other simple updates like assuming that car transportation is mostly electrified would further increase the margin of safety.
kieranmaine 6y ago
I disagree. The UKs National Grid see a role for nuclear in its Future Energy Scenarios (https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios/fes-2020-documents https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-...), laying out 4 different energy scenarios in 2050, but wind will dominate electricity generation. Also, the current generation of EVs will provide a substantial amount of flexibility resulting in £billions of savings for the UK grid and consumers (see https://www.kaluza.com/blog-busting-the-myth-ev-smart-charging-and-secondary-peaks/ https://www.kaluza.com/blog-busting-the-myth-ev-smart-chargi...). The addition of Vehicle-to-Grid chargers will further allow increased renewables. With the cost of these technologies decreasing, the importance of nuclear power will reduce over time.
tchvil 6y ago
Jean-Marc Jancovici is a French engineer/entrepreneur who study energy and climate change for about 30 years. There is a single talk I know he gave in China that is in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRC5-hAbUGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRC5-hAbUGA Unfortunately most other talks are in French(auto subtitles maybe). His style is a little arrogant and may hit a nerve. But past this, all he says is backed by research and physics. He says renewable can't provide the level of energy we have without decreasing drastically our consumption. And nuclear fission is the only path we have to reduce our CO2 emissions. I would love renewable or fusion to cover all our needs, and keep my comfortable life as it is today. But I didn't find any inspiring talks or readings so far to balance his arguments.
- the_gastropod 6y ago
  > I would love renewable or fusion to cover all our needs, and keep my comfortable life as it is today I've been reading Jason Hickel's book "Less is More" [1], which talks a bit about energy use, in general, and how it must be reduced, regardless of what technologies we wind up with. And one of his points is examining how much energy is just flat-out wasted. ~50% of food is just wasted, for example—whether because it's ugly, or left in a refrigerator too long, and rots. Think about how most American cities are designed, and how it's just normal for most Americans to own and drive personal vehicles for hours each day. Those resources and the energy needed to extract those resources is largely just unnecessarily wasted. Consider countries like Costa Rica, Finland, Taiwan, etc., where quality of life is better than in the US. Life expectancy is higher. Infant mortality is lower. Education is better. And they need a tiny fraction of the energy the U.S. does. Clearly there's room for a lot of improvement with how we use energy. [1] https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    This is similar to the point Vaclav Smil makes when he looks at our dismal prospects for decarbonization, if humanity is going to survive, then we are simply going to have to consume less. I think this concept of reduced consumption is in conflict with a system of high inequality today that is often justified by the prospect of (slowing) growth. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/21/vaclav-smil-interview-growth-must-end-economists https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/21/vaclav-smil-in...
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
For whatever reason people have a hard time hearing this. I've similarly had the same argument over and over again. Also for whatever reason people love to talk about how mining trucks will become EVs, and they always link me to the same Komatsu truck which they claim is an EV, but actually has a diesel engine and uses an electric power transmission.
lukeschlather 6y ago
You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. There are a lot of economical grid-scale power storage systems. Batteries are low-latency storage used to stabilize load - they are expensive because they are so quick to change the power they provide. Frequency, voltage, current, whatever you need a battery can provide in milliseconds. But you don't want to run it for days. If you want to store power overnight you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. There are lots of technologies available. Some of them are cheaper than nuclear, but none of them are economical yet because there is no market for day-to-week-scale storage until solar/wind start to approach 50% of the power mix.
- clusterfish 6y ago
  Building pumped hydro is not going to suddenly be more feasible or cheaper as demand for it increases. What else can store energy for more than a week at a cost that approaches reasonable?
- hntrader 6y ago
  What's an example of one that's cheaper than nuclear?
- lucb1e 6y ago
  > You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. [...] you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. ...neither of which are cheaper than batteries or we'd be doing that Yes, we are doing pumped hydro, but only in a few convenient locations. I recently watched a video about Ireland's new pumped storage facility[1], it mentions some pretty tight constraints for what we currently consider economical (e.g. hill slope). Bill Gates' new book[2] doesn't go into as much detail but also doesn't sound like we got this figured out any better than batteries, basically saying we need breakthroughs or this is going to simply be a prohibitively expensive undertaking for non-rich countries. Specifically about hydrogen (the "to gas" option that has the most buzz at least) [2] says that there are high losses in conversion (without saying how much) as well as hydrogen leaking from metal tanks and electrolyzers being very expensive. There's hope for breakthroughs but.. they do have to happen in order for it to be better (cheaper) than today's batteries. At a bare minimum, it's not obvious that what GP wrote is "just wrong". This isn't something we have a definite answer to. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI [2] "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need" ISBN 978-0-593-21577-7
7952 6y ago
In terms of scaling up, renewables + batteries seems to have a clearer logistical and economic path. Batteries can be mass produced and we need to increase production capacity anyway for electric cars. And there is already a massive industry around battery technology from consumer electronics. Solar panels in particular are ridiculously modular and offshore wind can rely on existing oil industry experience. I just don't see a similar pathway for nuclear? Particularly in less stable parts of the world without an existing industry.
pfdietz 6y ago
> are just not viable as baseline power until batteries improve cost and density by several orders of magnitudes. This is an outrageous falsehood. Play with the numbers at this model site to see: http://model.energy/ http://model.energy/ Also, why is energy density relevant for stationary storage? The cost of land to site batteries is trivial.

hntrader 6y ago

Maybe you should write an article about that, and put it up on HN, given that it's such a common point of contention/misunderstanding.

Hammershaft 6y ago
There are people more knowledgeable then me who have made these points better than I could, I'd recommend Vaclav Smil as a great source on this. The problem is that his material makes for grim reading, and I think many people researching this subject are drawn to techno optimism even when the numbers don't add up because the subject as a whole is so grim.
- samvher 6y ago
  Do you have specific recommendations among his writings?
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    http://vaclavsmil.com/2017/05/08/energy-and-civilization-a-history/ http://vaclavsmil.com/2017/05/08/energy-and-civilization-a-h... I also recommend looking through his list of books on the sidebar.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
The whole "baseline" thing is partly a myth, and there is an article about that https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...
enaaem 6y ago
This is a good one http://www.withouthotair.com http://www.withouthotair.com. It looks at whole energy plans. Not just wether technology X is cool.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Isn't that the site that argues the UK cannot get by with renewables, but assumes large amounts of biomass are needed to be grown locally?
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    It's from 2007 and will not get an update since the author has died. I do like it for taking a quantitative approach even though the assumptions used are increasingly outdated. Here's the summary page where the author asked if the UK could supply its energy needs from renewables alone: http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml The answer was "not quite." However, he assumed that utility scale solar farms would be using 10% efficient panels. 20% are now widely available. So let's make these two quick edits: - Assume that solar farms provide double the energy from doubled panel efficiency. - Drop biomass, because it's unneeded with better solar farms. With these changes the renewable energy supply of 206 kWh/person/day exceeds modeled demand of 195 kWh/person/day. Making some other simple updates like assuming that car transportation is mostly electrified would further increase the margin of safety.

kieranmaine 6y ago

I disagree. The UKs National Grid see a role for nuclear in its Future Energy Scenarios (https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios/fes-2020-documents https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-...), laying out 4 different energy scenarios in 2050, but wind will dominate electricity generation. Also, the current generation of EVs will provide a substantial amount of flexibility resulting in £billions of savings for the UK grid and consumers (see https://www.kaluza.com/blog-busting-the-myth-ev-smart-charging-and-secondary-peaks/ https://www.kaluza.com/blog-busting-the-myth-ev-smart-chargi...). The addition of Vehicle-to-Grid chargers will further allow increased renewables. With the cost of these technologies decreasing, the importance of nuclear power will reduce over time.

tchvil 6y ago

Jean-Marc Jancovici is a French engineer/entrepreneur who study energy and climate change for about 30 years. There is a single talk I know he gave in China that is in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRC5-hAbUGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRC5-hAbUGA Unfortunately most other talks are in French(auto subtitles maybe). His style is a little arrogant and may hit a nerve. But past this, all he says is backed by research and physics. He says renewable can't provide the level of energy we have without decreasing drastically our consumption. And nuclear fission is the only path we have to reduce our CO2 emissions. I would love renewable or fusion to cover all our needs, and keep my comfortable life as it is today. But I didn't find any inspiring talks or readings so far to balance his arguments.

the_gastropod 6y ago
> I would love renewable or fusion to cover all our needs, and keep my comfortable life as it is today I've been reading Jason Hickel's book "Less is More" [1], which talks a bit about energy use, in general, and how it must be reduced, regardless of what technologies we wind up with. And one of his points is examining how much energy is just flat-out wasted. ~50% of food is just wasted, for example—whether because it's ugly, or left in a refrigerator too long, and rots. Think about how most American cities are designed, and how it's just normal for most Americans to own and drive personal vehicles for hours each day. Those resources and the energy needed to extract those resources is largely just unnecessarily wasted. Consider countries like Costa Rica, Finland, Taiwan, etc., where quality of life is better than in the US. Life expectancy is higher. Infant mortality is lower. Education is better. And they need a tiny fraction of the energy the U.S. does. Clearly there's room for a lot of improvement with how we use energy. [1] https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  This is similar to the point Vaclav Smil makes when he looks at our dismal prospects for decarbonization, if humanity is going to survive, then we are simply going to have to consume less. I think this concept of reduced consumption is in conflict with a system of high inequality today that is often justified by the prospect of (slowing) growth. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/21/vaclav-smil-interview-growth-must-end-economists https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/21/vaclav-smil-in...

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

For whatever reason people have a hard time hearing this. I've similarly had the same argument over and over again. Also for whatever reason people love to talk about how mining trucks will become EVs, and they always link me to the same Komatsu truck which they claim is an EV, but actually has a diesel engine and uses an electric power transmission.

lukeschlather 6y ago

You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. There are a lot of economical grid-scale power storage systems. Batteries are low-latency storage used to stabilize load - they are expensive because they are so quick to change the power they provide. Frequency, voltage, current, whatever you need a battery can provide in milliseconds. But you don't want to run it for days. If you want to store power overnight you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. There are lots of technologies available. Some of them are cheaper than nuclear, but none of them are economical yet because there is no market for day-to-week-scale storage until solar/wind start to approach 50% of the power mix.

clusterfish 6y ago
Building pumped hydro is not going to suddenly be more feasible or cheaper as demand for it increases. What else can store energy for more than a week at a cost that approaches reasonable?
hntrader 6y ago
What's an example of one that's cheaper than nuclear?
lucb1e 6y ago
> You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. [...] you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. ...neither of which are cheaper than batteries or we'd be doing that Yes, we are doing pumped hydro, but only in a few convenient locations. I recently watched a video about Ireland's new pumped storage facility[1], it mentions some pretty tight constraints for what we currently consider economical (e.g. hill slope). Bill Gates' new book[2] doesn't go into as much detail but also doesn't sound like we got this figured out any better than batteries, basically saying we need breakthroughs or this is going to simply be a prohibitively expensive undertaking for non-rich countries. Specifically about hydrogen (the "to gas" option that has the most buzz at least) [2] says that there are high losses in conversion (without saying how much) as well as hydrogen leaking from metal tanks and electrolyzers being very expensive. There's hope for breakthroughs but.. they do have to happen in order for it to be better (cheaper) than today's batteries. At a bare minimum, it's not obvious that what GP wrote is "just wrong". This isn't something we have a definite answer to. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI [2] "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need" ISBN 978-0-593-21577-7

7952 6y ago

In terms of scaling up, renewables + batteries seems to have a clearer logistical and economic path. Batteries can be mass produced and we need to increase production capacity anyway for electric cars. And there is already a massive industry around battery technology from consumer electronics. Solar panels in particular are ridiculously modular and offshore wind can rely on existing oil industry experience. I just don't see a similar pathway for nuclear? Particularly in less stable parts of the world without an existing industry.

pfdietz 6y ago

> are just not viable as baseline power until batteries improve cost and density by several orders of magnitudes. This is an outrageous falsehood. Play with the numbers at this model site to see: http://model.energy/ http://model.energy/ Also, why is energy density relevant for stationary storage? The cost of land to site batteries is trivial.