4 ms·

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

by jpxw 6y ago

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?

4 ms·

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

by 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?