2 ms·

I support scaling up renewables. The question is, should we bet on the solution of fundamental unsolved science and engineering problems that currently keep the

I support scaling up renewables. The question is, should we bet on the solution of fundamental unsolved science and engineering problems that currently keep them from scaling further? Or hedge our bets by scaling up nuclear to cover the gaps left by renewables?

jeffbee 5y ago
What is one of those fundamental problems? Fusion has unsolved problems. Batteries do not.
- civilized 5y ago
  How confident are you that using batteries to reliably serve energy at a civilization scale has no fundamental unsolved problems? Because in my reading about this topic, it comes up quite frequently.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    I'm fairly confident that if you want to throw FUD it's your responsibility, not mine, to give some example.
adrianN 5y ago
As far as I know there are no unsolved problems, power2gas could scale to grid scale storage and we have enough room for solar and wind to cover our energy needs. The problems are purely economical right now: power2gas is pretty expensive. So I think it makes sense to ask whether nuclear can realistically beat that. Nuclear is not known to be a particularly cheap source of power either. I defer to people who do more detailed analysis than I can to answer this question. Meanwhile I think we should just build more wind and solar and electrify as much of our energy demand as we can.
- js8 5y ago
  I completely agree with you, I would just add the big unknown is the shift in demand. If renewables are going to be much cheaper in certain times (they are already cheaper than nuclear, on average, for example https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-...), it will be worth shifting energy-intensive industries to utilize that. This might significantly reduce the demand for the base load, and reduce the need for power2gas (and so its cost) significantly.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Yes, I have a friend who works on projects like that for Siemens in Germany. Apparently there is a regime of renewable buildout (roughly at the percentage where Germany is currently at) where it's cheaper to shape demand than to build storage.
  - civilized 5y ago
    This is a very interesting point. I wonder how this restructuring to follow the energy would impact the efficiency of the relevant industries. In space as well as time, I would imagine - you could perhaps move a lot of energy-intensive stuff out into the deserts, right next to the solar arrays.
    - icegreentea2 5y ago
      Most energy intensive work is also mass/volume intensive as well - as in it's producing something. Obvious exception is something like a data-center. Since transporting goods has a cost in itself, it'll probably continue to be cheaper to ship electricity across land, than to relocate plants (in general, there will always be exceptions), especially if we need big, efficient transmission to get energy from the desert into cities (cause those won't move) anyways.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Chile and Peru could be big winners. The Atacama Desert has the best solar resource on the planet.
- civilized 5y ago
  What exactly is power2gas? Is it a proven scalable technology?
  - adrianN 5y ago
    It's a fancy name for electrolysis, optionally followed by a step that converts the Hydrogen to Methane (or even more steps to make synthetic fuels). There are pilot plants in the Megawatt range in operation already. The Wikipedia has an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas The German article is a bit better if you can read German.
    - civilized 5y ago
      I might try Google Translate on the German article :) I have always wondered why electrolysis didn't get more attention as a storage option for renewables. How hard can it be to store a bunch of hydrogen gas? Or, apparently, convert it to synthetic fuels that we already know how to store. Also, you suck CO2 out of the atmosphere while generating the gas, right? And eventually you burn it, which could release that CO2 back, but suppose instead you capture it. Wouldn't this then be negative carbon electricity? And if you scaled it up enough, could it actually put a dent in rising CO2 levels and even allow us to regulate CO2 levels to stabilize climate?
      - adrianN 5y ago
        I believe that the current installations use CO2 from a concentrated source like the exhaust of a gas turbine to make things easier. Gas has the big benefit that we already have infrastructure to store and distribute it. I think all (developed?) countries have infrastructure for strategic gas reserves that can store months worth of natural gas.
        civilized 5y ago
        So best case scenario is probably just carbon neutral, as you'd cycle between a reserve of stored gas and a reserve of CO2 to make new gas when you burn the stored reserves. Still, it'd be way better than what we have now. I wonder if there are any promising companies to invest in, or any ways to make a broad bet on the sector. It'd sure beat sinking my money into the speculative, fossil-burning boondoggle that is BTC.

jeffbee 5y ago

What is one of those fundamental problems? Fusion has unsolved problems. Batteries do not.

civilized 5y ago
How confident are you that using batteries to reliably serve energy at a civilization scale has no fundamental unsolved problems? Because in my reading about this topic, it comes up quite frequently.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  I'm fairly confident that if you want to throw FUD it's your responsibility, not mine, to give some example.

adrianN 5y ago

As far as I know there are no unsolved problems, power2gas could scale to grid scale storage and we have enough room for solar and wind to cover our energy needs. The problems are purely economical right now: power2gas is pretty expensive. So I think it makes sense to ask whether nuclear can realistically beat that. Nuclear is not known to be a particularly cheap source of power either. I defer to people who do more detailed analysis than I can to answer this question. Meanwhile I think we should just build more wind and solar and electrify as much of our energy demand as we can.

js8 5y ago
I completely agree with you, I would just add the big unknown is the shift in demand. If renewables are going to be much cheaper in certain times (they are already cheaper than nuclear, on average, for example https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-...), it will be worth shifting energy-intensive industries to utilize that. This might significantly reduce the demand for the base load, and reduce the need for power2gas (and so its cost) significantly.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Yes, I have a friend who works on projects like that for Siemens in Germany. Apparently there is a regime of renewable buildout (roughly at the percentage where Germany is currently at) where it's cheaper to shape demand than to build storage.
- civilized 5y ago
  This is a very interesting point. I wonder how this restructuring to follow the energy would impact the efficiency of the relevant industries. In space as well as time, I would imagine - you could perhaps move a lot of energy-intensive stuff out into the deserts, right next to the solar arrays.
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    Most energy intensive work is also mass/volume intensive as well - as in it's producing something. Obvious exception is something like a data-center. Since transporting goods has a cost in itself, it'll probably continue to be cheaper to ship electricity across land, than to relocate plants (in general, there will always be exceptions), especially if we need big, efficient transmission to get energy from the desert into cities (cause those won't move) anyways.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Chile and Peru could be big winners. The Atacama Desert has the best solar resource on the planet.
civilized 5y ago
What exactly is power2gas? Is it a proven scalable technology?
- adrianN 5y ago
  It's a fancy name for electrolysis, optionally followed by a step that converts the Hydrogen to Methane (or even more steps to make synthetic fuels). There are pilot plants in the Megawatt range in operation already. The Wikipedia has an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas The German article is a bit better if you can read German.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I might try Google Translate on the German article :) I have always wondered why electrolysis didn't get more attention as a storage option for renewables. How hard can it be to store a bunch of hydrogen gas? Or, apparently, convert it to synthetic fuels that we already know how to store. Also, you suck CO2 out of the atmosphere while generating the gas, right? And eventually you burn it, which could release that CO2 back, but suppose instead you capture it. Wouldn't this then be negative carbon electricity? And if you scaled it up enough, could it actually put a dent in rising CO2 levels and even allow us to regulate CO2 levels to stabilize climate?
    - adrianN 5y ago
      I believe that the current installations use CO2 from a concentrated source like the exhaust of a gas turbine to make things easier. Gas has the big benefit that we already have infrastructure to store and distribute it. I think all (developed?) countries have infrastructure for strategic gas reserves that can store months worth of natural gas.
      - civilized 5y ago
        So best case scenario is probably just carbon neutral, as you'd cycle between a reserve of stored gas and a reserve of CO2 to make new gas when you burn the stored reserves. Still, it'd be way better than what we have now. I wonder if there are any promising companies to invest in, or any ways to make a broad bet on the sector. It'd sure beat sinking my money into the speculative, fossil-burning boondoggle that is BTC.