3 ms·

But are they cheaper when you add the batteries? Doubtful. I hear maybe by 2030. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-build-new-coal-plants-

by jcrben 5y ago

But are they cheaper when you add the batteries? Doubtful. I hear maybe by 2030. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-build-new-coal-plants-due-low-cost-despite-climate-change-2021-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-buil...

dukeyukey 5y ago
So run easily-tunable gas turbines when needed, nuclear if you need it, and renewables for the bulk of your energy. Perfect is the enemy of good here.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  That's not a particularly good solution, since it doesn't halt climate change. We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production in several states. We're reaching the point where those peaker gas plants are the main source of emissions that we're trying to eliminate. Renewables are better on a raw $/KW measure. But that's a naive way of assessing intermittent sources. Once you start saturating the market during peak production, only part of the newly installed capacity actually displaces fossil fuels. Non-intermittent sources of energy like hydroelectricity and nuclear power aren't subject to this constraint
  - dukeyukey 5y ago
    If nuclear can handle what we currently use gas for, all the better, and I'd be totally down with that. > We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production What do you mean by that?
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      Solar panels produce energy in a sine wave. Once the peak of the sine wave exceeds energy demand, you start hitting diminishing returns. The fluctuations in wind production are more complicated, but it's subject to the same problem. You can over-produce to make up for the troughs in energy demand, but the nature of overproduction means that a portion of generated energy goes to waste. This is already happening in California: daytime energy production is saturated. This is why most renewable plans assume that there will be some silver bullet that makes energy storage effectively free. Without some way to turn an intermittent source into a consistent source, it'll be very difficult to decarbonize with wind and solar.
- EricE 5y ago
  That’s the real problem today - there is no ability to compromise. Everything is a zero sum game :( Nuclear can replace fossil fuels today. If we finally get other renewables to a place where they can address issues like predictability and reliability, then we look at de-commissioning nuclear. But preemptively removing a very viable tool from your toolset is just bananas.

by jcrben 5y ago

dukeyukey 5y ago

So run easily-tunable gas turbines when needed, nuclear if you need it, and renewables for the bulk of your energy. Perfect is the enemy of good here.

Manuel_D 5y ago
That's not a particularly good solution, since it doesn't halt climate change. We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production in several states. We're reaching the point where those peaker gas plants are the main source of emissions that we're trying to eliminate. Renewables are better on a raw $/KW measure. But that's a naive way of assessing intermittent sources. Once you start saturating the market during peak production, only part of the newly installed capacity actually displaces fossil fuels. Non-intermittent sources of energy like hydroelectricity and nuclear power aren't subject to this constraint
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  If nuclear can handle what we currently use gas for, all the better, and I'd be totally down with that. > We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production What do you mean by that?
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Solar panels produce energy in a sine wave. Once the peak of the sine wave exceeds energy demand, you start hitting diminishing returns. The fluctuations in wind production are more complicated, but it's subject to the same problem. You can over-produce to make up for the troughs in energy demand, but the nature of overproduction means that a portion of generated energy goes to waste. This is already happening in California: daytime energy production is saturated. This is why most renewable plans assume that there will be some silver bullet that makes energy storage effectively free. Without some way to turn an intermittent source into a consistent source, it'll be very difficult to decarbonize with wind and solar.
EricE 5y ago
That’s the real problem today - there is no ability to compromise. Everything is a zero sum game :( Nuclear can replace fossil fuels today. If we finally get other renewables to a place where they can address issues like predictability and reliability, then we look at de-commissioning nuclear. But preemptively removing a very viable tool from your toolset is just bananas.