4 ms·

Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. We are being told on the one hand th

by jboog 6y ago

Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions of people. Oh but actually we can just refuse to decarbonize our energy production because maybe someday 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now there's a true "green" renewable energy I guess.

pfdietz 6y ago
> Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. Nonsense. It's clear they can, although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries.
- jboog 6y ago
  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology. All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    No sir, YOU have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Note that you are not claiming that they could be competitive, but that they could not do it at all, regardless of price. This is clearly nonsense.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jboog 6y ago
      Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage. I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil mustachio-twirling Koch brothers are pulling the strings. Because the technology does not exist at scale to do this. Or do you want to continue with your speculative science fiction daydreams?
      - bob29 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        The argument you make there is of course invalid. Your argument is "it hasn't happened yet, therefore it cannot happen". This argument proves entirely too much; it implies no technological change can ever occur. To make this argument, you have to demonstrate that the situations in which the change did not occur are the same in all important respects as the current situation. And you cannot do that. Here's what's different. (1) The cost of renewables has crashed, especially in the last decade. In the case of PV, by nearly an order of magnitude. This is an extreme rate of change for an energy technology. (2) The cost of storage has also fallen rapidly, and continues to fall. (3) Market conditions are now beginning to favor installation of storage, as they didn't before (when there's enough dispatchable gas on the grid vs. renewables storage doesn't pay off.) (4) The existing infrastructure was largely installed at times when renewables were not competitive. However, it won't be ripped out until it becomes uneconomical to operate it (which means ignoring its capital cost). So observing that the source are still being used doesn't imply renewables are not winning. (5) Fossil fuels have not, and still large are not, being taxed at a level appropriate for the damage they are going to do. Renewables don't have to beat fossil fuels unburdened by CO2 taxes (although we may have waited long enough with CO2 taxes that they may increasingly do so, at least in some market conditions). CO2 taxes will rise to the level needed to push fossil fuels entirely out of the market, and then the question becomes "which is cheaper, nuclear or renewables (or, possibly, fossil fuels with CCS)"? (6) Once fossil fuels are out of the way, it is crystal clear from the data that absent some technological breakthroughs, new nuclear power plants are grossly uncompetitive vs. renewables. This (and not ludicrous conspiracy theory) is why you're seeing massive installation of renewables around the world, and nuclear installs are gasping for breath.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  > although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries. It'd probably be helpful to elaborate, rather than just insist that the above commenter is wrong and loosely suggest at other solutions. Things like hydrogen storage, synthetic methane, and thermal storage remain in the prototyping phase. I think it's not correct to say that they can, seeing as there isn't even a commercial market for these technologies let alone one that we know will scale. By comparison countries have already powered >80% of their electricity with nuclear. It's clear than nuclear power can completely replace fossil fuels. Renewables might be able to replace it, but that's a gamble based on assuming a new storage solution will work excellent. Not just better, but truly blows-everything-else-out-of-the-water phenomenal. When the stakes at play are stopping climate change, this is a very risky assumption to make.
  - bob29 6y ago
    https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/ https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/ These technologies exist today and are based on sound thermodynamic principles and existing industrial capability.
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      Really? What company can I call up and buy 50 GWh of storage from? That's only 6 minutes worth of storage for the USA. I'd say if we could provision 1 hour's worth of storage over the span of a decade, that'd amount to a demonstration of economic feasibility. But few of these upcoming technologies are making it out of the prototyping stage, let alone commerical success on this scale.
      - bob29 6y ago
        There isn't a company you can call up because projects of this magnitude aren't quoted over the phone to internet forums users. 50 GWh is stored in ~30,000 barrels of synthetic fuel. GWh is an incomplete way to specify storage, there are different technologies for the different ways storage may be needed, depending on what resources are on the grid: short term to handle the peaks of everyone microwaving their breakfast and coffee at 7am or long term storage to handle a once every few decades event like a Texas snow storm. No one is presently making these because the policy of the grid was developed around power plants that dig stuff out of the ground and burn it - the markets are based on bidding with the assumption every power plant will have a marginal cost of generation relative to the cost of its fuel. This policy doesn't reflect the nature of renewables which besides their capital cost have very low to 0 marginal cost of production. This has disrupted the energy markets in many ways and policy is still being developed to incentivize storage capacity.
Stupulous 6y ago
About 1/5th of US energy usage is renewable. That means we can shutdown 1/5th of nonrenewable plants or shutdown all nonrenewables 1/5th of the time, real answer somewhere in between. The top level post recommends doing this only to carbon sources and leaving nuclear alone. There are good arguments for and against pivoting to nuclear right now. But there is an (I think) unquestionable position presented here that we shouldn't be pivoting away from nuclear and shutting down plants.

by jboog 6y ago

pfdietz 6y ago

> Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. Nonsense. It's clear they can, although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries.

jboog 6y ago
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology. All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  No sir, YOU have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Note that you are not claiming that they could be competitive, but that they could not do it at all, regardless of price. This is clearly nonsense.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jboog 6y ago
    Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage. I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil mustachio-twirling Koch brothers are pulling the strings. Because the technology does not exist at scale to do this. Or do you want to continue with your speculative science fiction daydreams?
    - bob29 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      The argument you make there is of course invalid. Your argument is "it hasn't happened yet, therefore it cannot happen". This argument proves entirely too much; it implies no technological change can ever occur. To make this argument, you have to demonstrate that the situations in which the change did not occur are the same in all important respects as the current situation. And you cannot do that. Here's what's different. (1) The cost of renewables has crashed, especially in the last decade. In the case of PV, by nearly an order of magnitude. This is an extreme rate of change for an energy technology. (2) The cost of storage has also fallen rapidly, and continues to fall. (3) Market conditions are now beginning to favor installation of storage, as they didn't before (when there's enough dispatchable gas on the grid vs. renewables storage doesn't pay off.) (4) The existing infrastructure was largely installed at times when renewables were not competitive. However, it won't be ripped out until it becomes uneconomical to operate it (which means ignoring its capital cost). So observing that the source are still being used doesn't imply renewables are not winning. (5) Fossil fuels have not, and still large are not, being taxed at a level appropriate for the damage they are going to do. Renewables don't have to beat fossil fuels unburdened by CO2 taxes (although we may have waited long enough with CO2 taxes that they may increasingly do so, at least in some market conditions). CO2 taxes will rise to the level needed to push fossil fuels entirely out of the market, and then the question becomes "which is cheaper, nuclear or renewables (or, possibly, fossil fuels with CCS)"? (6) Once fossil fuels are out of the way, it is crystal clear from the data that absent some technological breakthroughs, new nuclear power plants are grossly uncompetitive vs. renewables. This (and not ludicrous conspiracy theory) is why you're seeing massive installation of renewables around the world, and nuclear installs are gasping for breath.
sir_bearington 6y ago
> although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries. It'd probably be helpful to elaborate, rather than just insist that the above commenter is wrong and loosely suggest at other solutions. Things like hydrogen storage, synthetic methane, and thermal storage remain in the prototyping phase. I think it's not correct to say that they can, seeing as there isn't even a commercial market for these technologies let alone one that we know will scale. By comparison countries have already powered >80% of their electricity with nuclear. It's clear than nuclear power can completely replace fossil fuels. Renewables might be able to replace it, but that's a gamble based on assuming a new storage solution will work excellent. Not just better, but truly blows-everything-else-out-of-the-water phenomenal. When the stakes at play are stopping climate change, this is a very risky assumption to make.
- bob29 6y ago
  https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/ https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/ These technologies exist today and are based on sound thermodynamic principles and existing industrial capability.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    Really? What company can I call up and buy 50 GWh of storage from? That's only 6 minutes worth of storage for the USA. I'd say if we could provision 1 hour's worth of storage over the span of a decade, that'd amount to a demonstration of economic feasibility. But few of these upcoming technologies are making it out of the prototyping stage, let alone commerical success on this scale.
    - bob29 6y ago
      There isn't a company you can call up because projects of this magnitude aren't quoted over the phone to internet forums users. 50 GWh is stored in ~30,000 barrels of synthetic fuel. GWh is an incomplete way to specify storage, there are different technologies for the different ways storage may be needed, depending on what resources are on the grid: short term to handle the peaks of everyone microwaving their breakfast and coffee at 7am or long term storage to handle a once every few decades event like a Texas snow storm. No one is presently making these because the policy of the grid was developed around power plants that dig stuff out of the ground and burn it - the markets are based on bidding with the assumption every power plant will have a marginal cost of generation relative to the cost of its fuel. This policy doesn't reflect the nature of renewables which besides their capital cost have very low to 0 marginal cost of production. This has disrupted the energy markets in many ways and policy is still being developed to incentivize storage capacity.

Stupulous 6y ago

About 1/5th of US energy usage is renewable. That means we can shutdown 1/5th of nonrenewable plants or shutdown all nonrenewables 1/5th of the time, real answer somewhere in between. The top level post recommends doing this only to carbon sources and leaving nuclear alone. There are good arguments for and against pivoting to nuclear right now. But there is an (I think) unquestionable position presented here that we shouldn't be pivoting away from nuclear and shutting down plants.