4 ms·

> Lithium ion battery storage is not cheaper than nuclear, and is not produced at sufficient scale to be viable for grid storage. It may not be so now, but in

by Tade0 5y ago

> Lithium ion battery storage is not cheaper than nuclear, and is not produced at sufficient scale to be viable for grid storage. It may not be so now, but in 7 years, or in other words, by the time a nuclear power plant commissioned today starts producing power, it definitely will. Global li-ion manufacturing capacity is poised to triple by 2024: https://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/li-ion-manufacturing-in-2024-capacities-and-key-players https://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/li-ion-manufacturing-in-... Without a sudden, disruptive change in the cost and rate of deployment of nuclear there doesn't exist a path for it become a significantly larger part of the energy mix.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Global li-ion manufacturing capacity is poised to triple by 2024 But we need all of that to electrify transportation, so where do you get the ones for the power grid? Also, what happens to the price of batteries if you get rid of baseload and cause demand for batteries to spike much higher than even the increased amount of battery production capacity?
Manuel_D 5y ago
So 3 years from now, global lithium ion battery production will add up to ~3 hours of USA's electricity consumption? If we stop building EVs, electronics, etc. and dedicate all lithium ion battery production worldwide to grid storage in the US for 8 years we'll have enough for 1 day of electricity storage. Just for the USA. And how much storage we actually need? For 0% fossil fuel usage, some estimates place storage demands as high as 3 weeks [1]. This is still far from viable, even if the predictions hold true. It's also ignoring that electricity usage is predicted to increase substantially worldwide as countries develop, and that these predictions of lithium ion battery production might not pan out. It'd also severely delay adoption of electric vehicles, as battery capacity is being diverted to grid storage away from EVs. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...
- alfor 5y ago
  You usually oversize your production in renewable and get extra energy in your peak production. Here in Quebec we have a new tarification and smart water heater, house heating that do peak shaving. Some industries will have access to almost free energy in peak production period and will have incentives to do something valuable with it Charging of EV will certainly play a role too. Still nuclear can be useful if some country are able to build them fast enough and cheap enough.
- onethought 5y ago
  The world could redirect a lot of resources into building battery infrastructure. Enough for EVs and Storage. Your Storage does only need to be for 1-2 days (or more precisely until your renewables come online again to recharge them). I don't see a massive shift to battery manufacturing any more crazy than building a crazy amount of nuclear power plants.
- epistasis 5y ago
  3 hours of storage is massive, and enable super high penetration of renewables, above 80% of electricity generation. Even the much vaunted France doesn't have 80% nuclear on their grid. Plus, energy storage production capacity is growing at an exponential rate. It's doubtful that we could grow our nuclear construction crews at that pace. It's going to be very hard to nuclear to scale as fast as renewables and storage are, if there's even an economic case to be made for nuclear construction, and somebody finally solves the logistic problems of large construction projects in the modern Western world. We know we can build storage and renewables, but we don't know how to build nuclear anymore, and none, absolutely none, of the nuclear proponents have any proposals to fix it. The best is an entirely new type of small reactor that has been rejects in the past because of its high per unit cost. Perhaps it will work, but who knows? It's a big risk, whereas storage and renewables are a sure bet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > 3 hours of storage is massive It really isn't. For reference, across Europe we're currently having a meteorological phenomenon with bad weather, clouds, little wind, and low temperatures. It has been ongoing since ~october and is projected to continue into the winter. When Texas was hit with terrible weather last year, it lasted a few days. Multi-day storms, which take out solar and wind, aren't unheard of. 3 hours of storage is OK to even out things, but isn't nowhere near close enough to guarantee reliable electricity.
_-david-_ 5y ago
>It may not be so now, but in 7 years ... it definitely will. Maybe, maybe not. We know nuclear works so why not also make nuclear in case something happens and we can't build enough storage.
- Tade0 5y ago
  Because we simply are unable to do so fast enough. China recently started a massive, largest in the world project to add 150 plants over the next 15 years. That's 10 reactors annually, or an estimated 10GW using the current 49.6GW from 50 units they have already. Adjusted for capacity factor this is maybe going to keep up with solar deployment, but definitely not with wind capacity growth in the same country. And China has been the world leader in nuclear deployment for a while now. Renewables win on a "worse is better" basis - yes, they're intermittent, but they're cheap and deploy in a matter of months without too many specialists involved.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    You didn't explain why we shouldn't do both. Just because it takes a long time doesn't matter. If we want to ensure we have consistent energy production then nuclear should be built. Even if we can build a massive amount of storage it may not be enough. Global warming is supposed to cause extreme weather. Why not create nuclear which can work regardless of weather?

by Tade0 5y ago

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Global li-ion manufacturing capacity is poised to triple by 2024 But we need all of that to electrify transportation, so where do you get the ones for the power grid? Also, what happens to the price of batteries if you get rid of baseload and cause demand for batteries to spike much higher than even the increased amount of battery production capacity?

Manuel_D 5y ago

So 3 years from now, global lithium ion battery production will add up to ~3 hours of USA's electricity consumption? If we stop building EVs, electronics, etc. and dedicate all lithium ion battery production worldwide to grid storage in the US for 8 years we'll have enough for 1 day of electricity storage. Just for the USA. And how much storage we actually need? For 0% fossil fuel usage, some estimates place storage demands as high as 3 weeks [1]. This is still far from viable, even if the predictions hold true. It's also ignoring that electricity usage is predicted to increase substantially worldwide as countries develop, and that these predictions of lithium ion battery production might not pan out. It'd also severely delay adoption of electric vehicles, as battery capacity is being diverted to grid storage away from EVs. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...

alfor 5y ago
You usually oversize your production in renewable and get extra energy in your peak production. Here in Quebec we have a new tarification and smart water heater, house heating that do peak shaving. Some industries will have access to almost free energy in peak production period and will have incentives to do something valuable with it Charging of EV will certainly play a role too. Still nuclear can be useful if some country are able to build them fast enough and cheap enough.
onethought 5y ago
The world could redirect a lot of resources into building battery infrastructure. Enough for EVs and Storage. Your Storage does only need to be for 1-2 days (or more precisely until your renewables come online again to recharge them). I don't see a massive shift to battery manufacturing any more crazy than building a crazy amount of nuclear power plants.
epistasis 5y ago
3 hours of storage is massive, and enable super high penetration of renewables, above 80% of electricity generation. Even the much vaunted France doesn't have 80% nuclear on their grid. Plus, energy storage production capacity is growing at an exponential rate. It's doubtful that we could grow our nuclear construction crews at that pace. It's going to be very hard to nuclear to scale as fast as renewables and storage are, if there's even an economic case to be made for nuclear construction, and somebody finally solves the logistic problems of large construction projects in the modern Western world. We know we can build storage and renewables, but we don't know how to build nuclear anymore, and none, absolutely none, of the nuclear proponents have any proposals to fix it. The best is an entirely new type of small reactor that has been rejects in the past because of its high per unit cost. Perhaps it will work, but who knows? It's a big risk, whereas storage and renewables are a sure bet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sofixa 5y ago
  > 3 hours of storage is massive It really isn't. For reference, across Europe we're currently having a meteorological phenomenon with bad weather, clouds, little wind, and low temperatures. It has been ongoing since ~october and is projected to continue into the winter. When Texas was hit with terrible weather last year, it lasted a few days. Multi-day storms, which take out solar and wind, aren't unheard of. 3 hours of storage is OK to even out things, but isn't nowhere near close enough to guarantee reliable electricity.

_-david-_ 5y ago

>It may not be so now, but in 7 years ... it definitely will. Maybe, maybe not. We know nuclear works so why not also make nuclear in case something happens and we can't build enough storage.

Tade0 5y ago
Because we simply are unable to do so fast enough. China recently started a massive, largest in the world project to add 150 plants over the next 15 years. That's 10 reactors annually, or an estimated 10GW using the current 49.6GW from 50 units they have already. Adjusted for capacity factor this is maybe going to keep up with solar deployment, but definitely not with wind capacity growth in the same country. And China has been the world leader in nuclear deployment for a while now. Renewables win on a "worse is better" basis - yes, they're intermittent, but they're cheap and deploy in a matter of months without too many specialists involved.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  You didn't explain why we shouldn't do both. Just because it takes a long time doesn't matter. If we want to ensure we have consistent energy production then nuclear should be built. Even if we can build a massive amount of storage it may not be enough. Global warming is supposed to cause extreme weather. Why not create nuclear which can work regardless of weather?