8 ms·

Solar is now the cheapest form of energy. Ever. Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Jus

by beders 6y ago

Solar is now the cheapest form of energy. Ever. Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. All I keep hearing is soundbites from the nuclear and fossil fuel industry. All is missing is the political will, not technology. Use nuclear for situations in which there are no alternatives. Rovers on Mars or something.

Slikey 6y ago
Not just that solar is the cheapest but nuclear is also the second most expensive option. I really don't understand this recent flood of pro-nuclear posts on HN. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
- hntrader 6y ago
  Because those costings for solar and wind don't include the costs and viability of storage.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Because we know about economies of scale and mass production. I think greens only think about their own pet projects. I don't know a single proponent of nuclear power who is against supplementing it with solar, wind, etc.
jpxw 6y ago
I don’t think we have efficient enough storage (yet ?), do we? Can I get a source on solar being the cheapest energy source? That surprises me
- godelski 6y ago
  Depends. Are we talking battery needs for the Southwest? Yes. Other places that don't have a relatively constant solar output and more variable seasons? No. But this is one of the many reasons the situation is substantially more complicated than the general conversation.
  - notJim 6y ago
    > Other places that don't have a relatively constant solar output and more variable seasons? No. How big of a problem is this really, though? We could run more HVDC lines (as we already have in some places), such that sunny states provide power to northern states in the winter.
    - godelski 6y ago
      I don't actually know the answer. I do know that there isn't a singular grid in the US though so there are some complications. From my limited understanding the Texas power problem wouldn't have been solved if ERCOT was connected to the western or eastern grids. We're also talking about big losses if we're transmitting electricity across the country. There's also political issues as well as security issues (don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't putt all your baskets in the same place).
      - hntrader 6y ago
        The losses aren't big, we'd get sub-10 percent between any two locations within the US, and sub-4 percent in the typical case.
        godelski 6y ago
        That's good to know, thanks.
- notJim 6y ago
  Suppose nuclear requires various government supports to make the projects economically viable and in research for new reactor designs. Now suppose we put that same money into subsidizing renewables, and building a modern grid. Which one gives a better result? Edit: to add an even spicier question, why not keep renewables + natural gas with carbon capture?
titzer 6y ago
Sure. Just tell me where you are going to put all those solar panels now. On house roofs? In cities? Sounds great. In the desert? Count me out. We are going to cover this planet in tech junk like it's Blade Runner 2049. That's not a future I want to see. I like the deserts the way they are.
- ldbooth 6y ago
  All of the above, because it works at residential and commercial scale at the load with no line losses, and at utility scale utilizing the existing spoke and wheel grid model, and for cities we'll use the community solar model already popular today. Welcome to the present!
  - titzer 6y ago
    Like I said before, I think local solar is great. But utility scale solar is an environmental nightmare. Look at Ivanpah. Do you want the deserts covered in that?
    - ldbooth 6y ago
      Ivanpah is concentrating solar with heliostats, right? Not flat plate photovoltaic cells which is 99.9% of solar electric energy.
      - titzer 6y ago
        Doesn't matter. Mirrors or photovoltaics. They both produce similar amounts of power per area over the whole facility, and nowhere near what a nuclear plant outputs. The power density is literally 8x higher for nuclear versus photovoltaics, according to this [1] (sorry for stupid paywall). When you scale that up, you need insane amount of land that is literally nothing but solar panels. Where are we going to put all that new tech? [1] https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-economy-opinions-contributors-robert-bryce.html?sh=3d09abb11403 https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-econ...
godelski 6y ago
> All is missing is the political will, not technology. I hate this phrase and it is something both the "only renewables" and "only nuclear" camps make. Neither technology is developed enough to effectively take over the grid (plus one source is terrible for energy security, but renewables is a bit diversified, though you're arguing purely solar). The technical problem here is that we do not yet have the battery technology to sustain the grid. These are not the same batteries that we have in our cellphones. You cannot quick discharge common lipo batteries without starting a fire. But including batteries completely changes the cost structure and environmental impact which is why many suggest baseload technologies like hydro (nuclear would fit in here as well but yes, it is costly). This also creates a drastically different cost function for places like the American Southwest vs the American Northeast. There is missing political will, but there is also missing technology (and missing political will to fund the development of that technology).
sir_bearington 6y ago
> Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. The fact that storage at anywhere remotely close to the required scale doesn't exist is a very good reason.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stjohnswarts 6y ago
because there is no storage that can handle natural disasters like week long blizzards or hurricanes that wipe out power for weeks. Also these same disasters destroy solar arrays a lot faster than nuclear facilities which are build to survive such natural disasters. Are you going to ask communities to do without power for a couple years while they rebuild the local solar array? We need both. But people just don't seem to be able to put two and two together.
andrewlgood 6y ago
Solar and wind take significantly large amounts of land to generate electricity. NEI estimated in 2015 that wind farms require 360 times as much land to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility while PV solar requires 75. I think the better investment is solar/wind + storage with significant investment in storage technology. BTW, cheaper storage addresses the transportation issue as well. That being said, the cost of natural gas, particularly in the US will keep natural gas power plants in the equation for a long time.

by beders 6y ago

Slikey 6y ago

Not just that solar is the cheapest but nuclear is also the second most expensive option. I really don't understand this recent flood of pro-nuclear posts on HN. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

hntrader 6y ago
Because those costings for solar and wind don't include the costs and viability of storage.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Because we know about economies of scale and mass production. I think greens only think about their own pet projects. I don't know a single proponent of nuclear power who is against supplementing it with solar, wind, etc.

jpxw 6y ago

I don’t think we have efficient enough storage (yet ?), do we? Can I get a source on solar being the cheapest energy source? That surprises me

godelski 6y ago
Depends. Are we talking battery needs for the Southwest? Yes. Other places that don't have a relatively constant solar output and more variable seasons? No. But this is one of the many reasons the situation is substantially more complicated than the general conversation.
- notJim 6y ago
  > Other places that don't have a relatively constant solar output and more variable seasons? No. How big of a problem is this really, though? We could run more HVDC lines (as we already have in some places), such that sunny states provide power to northern states in the winter.
  - godelski 6y ago
    I don't actually know the answer. I do know that there isn't a singular grid in the US though so there are some complications. From my limited understanding the Texas power problem wouldn't have been solved if ERCOT was connected to the western or eastern grids. We're also talking about big losses if we're transmitting electricity across the country. There's also political issues as well as security issues (don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't putt all your baskets in the same place).
    - hntrader 6y ago
      The losses aren't big, we'd get sub-10 percent between any two locations within the US, and sub-4 percent in the typical case.
      - godelski 6y ago
        That's good to know, thanks.
notJim 6y ago
Suppose nuclear requires various government supports to make the projects economically viable and in research for new reactor designs. Now suppose we put that same money into subsidizing renewables, and building a modern grid. Which one gives a better result? Edit: to add an even spicier question, why not keep renewables + natural gas with carbon capture?

titzer 6y ago

Sure. Just tell me where you are going to put all those solar panels now. On house roofs? In cities? Sounds great. In the desert? Count me out. We are going to cover this planet in tech junk like it's Blade Runner 2049. That's not a future I want to see. I like the deserts the way they are.

ldbooth 6y ago
All of the above, because it works at residential and commercial scale at the load with no line losses, and at utility scale utilizing the existing spoke and wheel grid model, and for cities we'll use the community solar model already popular today. Welcome to the present!
- titzer 6y ago
  Like I said before, I think local solar is great. But utility scale solar is an environmental nightmare. Look at Ivanpah. Do you want the deserts covered in that?
  - ldbooth 6y ago
    Ivanpah is concentrating solar with heliostats, right? Not flat plate photovoltaic cells which is 99.9% of solar electric energy.
    - titzer 6y ago
      Doesn't matter. Mirrors or photovoltaics. They both produce similar amounts of power per area over the whole facility, and nowhere near what a nuclear plant outputs. The power density is literally 8x higher for nuclear versus photovoltaics, according to this [1] (sorry for stupid paywall). When you scale that up, you need insane amount of land that is literally nothing but solar panels. Where are we going to put all that new tech? [1] https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-economy-opinions-contributors-robert-bryce.html?sh=3d09abb11403 https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-econ...

godelski 6y ago

> All is missing is the political will, not technology. I hate this phrase and it is something both the "only renewables" and "only nuclear" camps make. Neither technology is developed enough to effectively take over the grid (plus one source is terrible for energy security, but renewables is a bit diversified, though you're arguing purely solar). The technical problem here is that we do not yet have the battery technology to sustain the grid. These are not the same batteries that we have in our cellphones. You cannot quick discharge common lipo batteries without starting a fire. But including batteries completely changes the cost structure and environmental impact which is why many suggest baseload technologies like hydro (nuclear would fit in here as well but yes, it is costly). This also creates a drastically different cost function for places like the American Southwest vs the American Northeast. There is missing political will, but there is also missing technology (and missing political will to fund the development of that technology).

sir_bearington 6y ago

> Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. The fact that storage at anywhere remotely close to the required scale doesn't exist is a very good reason.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stjohnswarts 6y ago

because there is no storage that can handle natural disasters like week long blizzards or hurricanes that wipe out power for weeks. Also these same disasters destroy solar arrays a lot faster than nuclear facilities which are build to survive such natural disasters. Are you going to ask communities to do without power for a couple years while they rebuild the local solar array? We need both. But people just don't seem to be able to put two and two together.

andrewlgood 6y ago

Solar and wind take significantly large amounts of land to generate electricity. NEI estimated in 2015 that wind farms require 360 times as much land to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility while PV solar requires 75. I think the better investment is solar/wind + storage with significant investment in storage technology. BTW, cheaper storage addresses the transportation issue as well. That being said, the cost of natural gas, particularly in the US will keep natural gas power plants in the equation for a long time.