3 ms·

Re "While this was true even 10 years ago..." A very remarkable thing is the decline in the cost of renewables just in the last 10 years. The cost number have

by Zigurd 5y ago

Re "While this was true even 10 years ago..." A very remarkable thing is the decline in the cost of renewables just in the last 10 years. The cost number have completely flipped in that time, not even counting the cost risk from delays, underestimated decommissioning costs for nuclear, the uninsurability of decommissioning costs, and the uninsurability of of nuclear accident risk. Solar and wind are cheapest now, by a multiple.

throwaway894345 5y ago
The parent is correctly factoring in storage costs. If you can't store solar or wind energy, then it can't be used for base load generation.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Even that is not true, since you can always combine electricity from multiple sources to form your base load, and there's no law of nature saying that the base load must come from a single source. But even more importantly, the need for storage arises at much higher renewable penetration levels than you observe in the current world. It will take multiple decades to get to the point where you need large amounts of storage in the first place.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Even that is not true, since you can always combine electricity from multiple sources to form your base load, and there's no law of nature saying that the base load must come from a single source. No one is saying it must come from a single source? Combining electricity from multiple reliable sources is fine, but there will be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing so you need to be able to meet energy demands in those cases. The only clean solution is nuclear (and hydro where available).
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > but there will be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing so you need to be able to meet energy demands in those cases. The only clean solution is nuclear (and hydro where available). That claim is highly debatable. Lots of people claim that the storage necessary to overcome these generation troughs make it infeasible but they seem to completely ignore holistic cost minimization approaches using overgeneration and then conclude that the amount of storage required makes it impossible. Meanwhile it's been calculated that modest overgeneration squashes storage amounts (and costs) in massive ways. People have actually studied these things, you know... See for example the 2018 article On the economics of electrical storage for variable renewable energy sources by Zerrahn et al.
      - politician 5y ago
        We can't assume overgeneration will be sustainable since there is profit to be made by idling or scrapping generators to reduce costs.
        jhgb 5y ago
        We can safely assume that. First, if the deployed mixture of generators is the cheapest mixed solution devised, there's money to be wasted "by idling or scrapping generators", since by definition that would increase costs, not reduce them, so it would be an irrational step to make. Second, opportunistic consumers not included in the base load can take advantage of these peaks, to the benefit of both sides (generators AND consumers -- consumers get power for peanuts and generators get some extra money they otherwise wouldn't get), for example for charging BEVs on demand -- and you'll need lots of power for that.
        politician 5y ago
        Are you assuming grid-scale storage exists and is deployed widely in your scenario?
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
ben_w 5y ago
> Solar and wind are cheapest now, by a multiple. Absolutely! I’m only suggesting nuclear as a backup for low wind nighttime demand. It’s completely pointless to use nuclear as the main power source precisely because of the cost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File%3A20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE%2C_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... But to deal with the low-wind nighttime demand, you have the option of storage (hydro and batteries aren’t the only options); you can do demand management (it helps people use less when they sleep); you can do intercontinental HVDC (in principle, but think in terms of a square metre of cross section for 100% of EU demand, so it will take a while to build); and you can do other power types — nuclear (expensive), geothermal (geographically specific in ways I don’t understand), tidal (surprisingly expensive), natural gas (sill better than coal). I’m in favour of all of the above except natural gas. I’m expecting near 100% wind & PV supported by existing nuclear plants and existing and new storage (and a few 10s of GW intercontinental HVDC) by early 2030s… but my expectations are based on hoping grid storage battery prices get a lot cheaper with less evidence than I’d like to be comfortable, which means I want to support all the solutions rather than just my favourite.
- Zigurd 5y ago
  I was not disagreeing

by Zigurd 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

The parent is correctly factoring in storage costs. If you can't store solar or wind energy, then it can't be used for base load generation.

jhgb 5y ago
Even that is not true, since you can always combine electricity from multiple sources to form your base load, and there's no law of nature saying that the base load must come from a single source. But even more importantly, the need for storage arises at much higher renewable penetration levels than you observe in the current world. It will take multiple decades to get to the point where you need large amounts of storage in the first place.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Even that is not true, since you can always combine electricity from multiple sources to form your base load, and there's no law of nature saying that the base load must come from a single source. No one is saying it must come from a single source? Combining electricity from multiple reliable sources is fine, but there will be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing so you need to be able to meet energy demands in those cases. The only clean solution is nuclear (and hydro where available).
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > but there will be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing so you need to be able to meet energy demands in those cases. The only clean solution is nuclear (and hydro where available). That claim is highly debatable. Lots of people claim that the storage necessary to overcome these generation troughs make it infeasible but they seem to completely ignore holistic cost minimization approaches using overgeneration and then conclude that the amount of storage required makes it impossible. Meanwhile it's been calculated that modest overgeneration squashes storage amounts (and costs) in massive ways. People have actually studied these things, you know... See for example the 2018 article On the economics of electrical storage for variable renewable energy sources by Zerrahn et al.
    - politician 5y ago
      We can't assume overgeneration will be sustainable since there is profit to be made by idling or scrapping generators to reduce costs.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        We can safely assume that. First, if the deployed mixture of generators is the cheapest mixed solution devised, there's money to be wasted "by idling or scrapping generators", since by definition that would increase costs, not reduce them, so it would be an irrational step to make. Second, opportunistic consumers not included in the base load can take advantage of these peaks, to the benefit of both sides (generators AND consumers -- consumers get power for peanuts and generators get some extra money they otherwise wouldn't get), for example for charging BEVs on demand -- and you'll need lots of power for that.
        politician 5y ago
        Are you assuming grid-scale storage exists and is deployed widely in your scenario?
    - throwaway894345 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

> Solar and wind are cheapest now, by a multiple. Absolutely! I’m only suggesting nuclear as a backup for low wind nighttime demand. It’s completely pointless to use nuclear as the main power source precisely because of the cost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File%3A20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE%2C_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... But to deal with the low-wind nighttime demand, you have the option of storage (hydro and batteries aren’t the only options); you can do demand management (it helps people use less when they sleep); you can do intercontinental HVDC (in principle, but think in terms of a square metre of cross section for 100% of EU demand, so it will take a while to build); and you can do other power types — nuclear (expensive), geothermal (geographically specific in ways I don’t understand), tidal (surprisingly expensive), natural gas (sill better than coal). I’m in favour of all of the above except natural gas. I’m expecting near 100% wind & PV supported by existing nuclear plants and existing and new storage (and a few 10s of GW intercontinental HVDC) by early 2030s… but my expectations are based on hoping grid storage battery prices get a lot cheaper with less evidence than I’d like to be comfortable, which means I want to support all the solutions rather than just my favourite.

Zigurd 5y ago
I was not disagreeing