12 ms·

You can make methane from carbon capture/sabatier reactors. Although I'm not sure if that's any more efficient than desalination/hydrolysis for an H2 plant with

You can make methane from carbon capture/sabatier reactors. Although I'm not sure if that's any more efficient than desalination/hydrolysis for an H2 plant with fuel cells. In any case, I'm onboard with replacing coal with gas, if nuclear isn't an option. Gas is cheap and fast to build today, and can be supplanted by nuclear/renewable later on. A pragmatic middle ground to (hopefully temporarily) accommodate the nuclear skeptics.

gibolt 5y ago
Solar + Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today. No need to choose a worse technology in every way now, that only becomes less viable as time goes on.
- bpfrh 5y ago
  Gas based Power plants are for providing capacity quickly when needed, and the cost is good compared to lithium batteries: 1 KW Gas is 0,0639€ 1 KW Lithium Battery is ~105€ There is an incoming lithium shortage which means either the price will rise sharply, or you have to build other types of batteries.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Those are the wrong units in two different ways at once. KW = power, kWh = energy = integrated power over time Batteries are reusable. I see claims varying from 2,000, to more than 10,000 times. That reduces the battery cost to between €0.0525 and €0.0105 / kWh.
    - bpfrh 5y ago
      You are absolutely right, I somehow remembered it as the same. Isn't my comparison totally wrong on all levels? I compared batteries, which are storage(or "power plants") with the price of the thing the gas power plant uses. A better comparison would be the cost of battery storage, cost of filling it up, versus building a gas power plant and then producing the same energy. If I find a good article on that I will link it.
      - iso1210 5y ago
        If 1kWh of gas is 6 cents, and a 1kWh battery is $100 and lasts for 10,000 cycles, that puts the price of the battery at 1 cent/kWh plus the charging cost (2c/kWh for solar) In addition, for Europe, the key part of removing Russia from the energy equation is worth a hell of a lot of money.
        labawi 5y ago
        Unfortunately the math is meaningless if it takes 10 000 years to get those 10 000 cycles. Batteries are currently competitive for short response times and short cycles. As price declines they become become useful for longer cycles, but there will be a point beyond which we need alternative solutions, such as bulk storage/gas, long transmission lines, and/or demand management.
        ben_w 5y ago
        I expect most (but not all) of the batteries in a PV+battery grid would be cycled (to whatever depth) every day, giving them a ~27 year replacement cycle not too different from other power plants. In principle I prefer antipodal transmission lines for the grid and batteries for transport — grid is cheaper and a trade opportunity — but at global scale, such a grid will take a while to build.
        holoduke 5y ago
        I hate to say it. I am not pro Russia at all, but its mainly the US who wants Russia to be removed so they can sell their goods to Europe. There no other reason. Luckily we see a larger movement of people recognizing this annoying behaviour of the US.
        bpfrh 5y ago
        I can follow that, but isn't this problematic when there is a power needed when there is no wind/solar available for recharging and you still need more? e.g. we would need a much larger energy storage, than for gas?
        5y ago
    - pyrale 5y ago
      Batteries have both kW (speed of charge/discharge) and kWh properties. For instance, Lazard's LCOS studies [1] list both values. It's not illogical to compare a battery with the production it's supposed to replace. [1]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Indeed, but mixing units means it isn’t a comparison.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today" And yet the existing battery facilities that could keep a smallish region (or a single city) supplied for 15 minutes or more are exceedingly rare. Maybe they aren't as cheap as you claim. Australia is recently building a 1200 MW battery in New South Wales for 2.4 billion dollars - a cost comparable to a new nuclear reactor. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/worlds-biggest-battery-with-1200mw-capacity-set-to-be-built-in-nsw-hunter-valley-australia https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/world...
  - deadfish 5y ago
    Looks like the cost of nuclear in Australia is not comparable. https://reneweconomy.com.au/too-slow-too-expensive-why-nuclear-power-makes-no-sense-for-australia/#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20creating%20energy,creation%20is%20%2416%2C000%20per%20kilowatt https://reneweconomy.com.au/too-slow-too-expensive-why-nucle....
    - berdario 5y ago
      I don't think we can trust these numbers https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Public%20Affairs/2019/Nuclear%20generation%20prerequisites%20House%20of%20Reps%20Inquiry%20(Cth%2C%20September%202019).pdf https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/re... "The spread of projected and reported capital costs is unsurprisingly broad. In Australia the most recent public assessment is provided by the GenCost2018 report by CSIRO and AEMO.10 It assumes the capital costs for SMR technology is $16,000/kW in 2020 (and experiences no major price decline over time). We note this number is more than double other cost estimates worldwide. We have sought additional clarification on the basis for this costing. Initial advice is that the number is based on a GHD estimate for AEMO of costs for a future Gen IV reactor to be constructed in 2035 and not for the type of reactor which would most likely be deployed in Australia." Anyhow, that 16k estimate is for power, not for energy... It's unclear over which timespans comparisons are being made (since a lot of it depends for how long power plants will be kept operational... A huge cost is the initial investment). I've seen energy estimates as low as 30$ per MWh, for Nuclear energy plants built with interest rates of 3%
- unicornmama 5y ago
  > Solar + Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today. That claim is baseless.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Solar dropped below 2c/kWh in the kind of places you should actually install solar. It depends on interest rates but that’s shockingly low. Batteries provide peaking power cheaper than any rarely used peaking power plant. (2,000 charge cycles on a 100$/kWh battery charged from 2c/kWh solar is ~7c/kWh whenever you need it.) That’s all it takes for adoption to dramatically increase. Market forces will shift things around as ever more solar comes online, but as long as daytime rates are above nighttime rates solar is an obvious win for electric companies.
    - algo_trader 5y ago
      > 2,000 charge cycles on a 100$/kWh battery charged from 2c/kWh solar is ~7c/kWh whenever you need it. Well - no. The $100 is up front capex. Add interest rate over 10 years and the price doubles. This is just the module/pack price, and you need to add installation, cabinets, fire suppression, AC/DC and controllers. Which probably add 50% to 100%. Like wise the headline 2c/kWh is probably for ideal projects with ideal land/transmission/regulation/geography. It is also 70% generated in summer, and only 30% in the winter months. Renewable energy is important, getting cheaper and accelerating and This-Is-Good (TM), But real physics and economics still matter.
      - Retric 5y ago
        2000 cycles is 5.5 years at one cycle per day, though 2 cycles per day can also be useful at the cost of a very short lifespan. Even 5% interest rates above inflation only increase costs by around 14%. At scale batteries are effectively a fuel that needs continuous replacement, though related equipment can last much longer. Also, module/pack prices dominate installation and operating costs as PV operates on DC and therefore needs a DC/AC converter etc. Summer vs winter depends on geography, it’s largely meaningless between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. It does become increasingly important further north, though offset by the relative need for AC. By the time you’re seeing such wide production swings from summer to winter you are simply in a bad location for solar. PS: Actual charge vs discharge cycles of course vary widely as to various other costs.
- belorn 5y ago
  Solar + a few hours of capacity are economical viable to run on a day and night cycle. Each day they charge up, and each day they discharge, with a market price that goes up and down in a similar pattern. This is possible for the southern part of EU, but more so in the southern parts of that (Egypt and below). Further north and solar get displaced by wind as the primary source of energy, and wind do not have a day cycle. It has weeks/months long period of low and high amount of wind. A battery solution that last hours is just a drop in the supply bucket. At the same time, rather than being discharge (and thus generating profits) each day, a wind battery solution will only generate profits a few times each year depending on how large the capacity is. The only way that will be profitable is if it several order times cheaper than the batteries for solar, or if the cost isn't directly linked to capacity. The technology that Germany and other "wind" countries is constantly talking about here is green hydro, but which is yet to be economical viable. One alternative is to build massive transmission lines from Africa and use solar power + batteries from the Sahara desert, through there are political, technological, and economical problems over designing such energy grid for EU. Thus for now the political winds are blowing towards natural gas and wind, despite the ecological issues of burning a fossil fuel.
  - 7952 5y ago
    Battery storage is profitable if you can sell for more than you buy. It just needs to be connected to the grid and not necessarily connected to a particular generator. Although battery storage may still be located close to generation. One benefit of this is that you get more benefit from your grid connection. Without batteries you can just export for a part of the day. With batteries you can export when it is sunny/windy, export when it is dark/not windy, and even import energy when wholesale prices are cheap. The expensive grid connection is better utilised.
  - holoduke 5y ago
    Not true. We have 10kw solar panels with 64x ,280ah LIFO batteries. Even in the winter we manage for 90% using only solar/battery power. We have a detached family house in the Netherlands using slightly above average. Our monthly bill is about 20 euros max. I build the entire setup myself for about 10k euros.
retrac 5y ago
> Although I'm not sure if that's any more efficient than desalination/hydrolysis for an H2 plant with fuel cells. One can make more than methane. Heavier liquid fuels like methanol, which is a great gasoline analogue, can also be synthesized. Theoretically speaking, the most efficient way to split water is thermal decomposition at really, really high temperatures, with a catalyst. I've seen a variety of proposals to split water into hydrogen and fix the H2 as a hydrocarbon, with direct heating from both concentrated solar and nuclear. I don't know about the practical economics, though.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  The trouble is that these hydrocarbon will just be burned like all others, causing GHG release. If you want something actually green, try ammonia via electrochemical methods, from hydrogen. This is also why these gas investments are a trap. We're already generally low on gas for winter and increasing the intake will not help, plus any operational emissions is too much and has to be optimized. 270 g CO2e is a plenty in a series of small deployments to ruin the targets.
  - labawi 5y ago
    If methane is manufactured from CO₂ and H₂O, there is no net GHG release, it's just storage, same as ammonia or pure hydrogen (though large methane leaks would be a problem). IMO, methane is good, if we are actively transitioning to manufactured methane. It's a plug-in substitute with existing distribution networks, storage and consumers, easy and cheap to handle. Though efficiency is pretty bad, so it's mostly good as cheap bulk storage.
    - AstralStorm 5y ago
      Methane is not manufactured from straight gases. Usually it is either mined or steam reformed from oil or coal. You can see the problem - mining with concomitant pollution and release of previously bound CO2 when it's burned. Attempting to do pure electrochemical reforming is extremely energy intensive, and requires rare metal membranes. As well as a way to concentrate CO2 from atmosphere reliably. (The Sleipnir problem.)

gibolt 5y ago

Solar + Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today. No need to choose a worse technology in every way now, that only becomes less viable as time goes on.

bpfrh 5y ago
Gas based Power plants are for providing capacity quickly when needed, and the cost is good compared to lithium batteries: 1 KW Gas is 0,0639€ 1 KW Lithium Battery is ~105€ There is an incoming lithium shortage which means either the price will rise sharply, or you have to build other types of batteries.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Those are the wrong units in two different ways at once. KW = power, kWh = energy = integrated power over time Batteries are reusable. I see claims varying from 2,000, to more than 10,000 times. That reduces the battery cost to between €0.0525 and €0.0105 / kWh.
  - bpfrh 5y ago
    You are absolutely right, I somehow remembered it as the same. Isn't my comparison totally wrong on all levels? I compared batteries, which are storage(or "power plants") with the price of the thing the gas power plant uses. A better comparison would be the cost of battery storage, cost of filling it up, versus building a gas power plant and then producing the same energy. If I find a good article on that I will link it.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      If 1kWh of gas is 6 cents, and a 1kWh battery is $100 and lasts for 10,000 cycles, that puts the price of the battery at 1 cent/kWh plus the charging cost (2c/kWh for solar) In addition, for Europe, the key part of removing Russia from the energy equation is worth a hell of a lot of money.
      - labawi 5y ago
        Unfortunately the math is meaningless if it takes 10 000 years to get those 10 000 cycles. Batteries are currently competitive for short response times and short cycles. As price declines they become become useful for longer cycles, but there will be a point beyond which we need alternative solutions, such as bulk storage/gas, long transmission lines, and/or demand management.
        ben_w 5y ago
        I expect most (but not all) of the batteries in a PV+battery grid would be cycled (to whatever depth) every day, giving them a ~27 year replacement cycle not too different from other power plants. In principle I prefer antipodal transmission lines for the grid and batteries for transport — grid is cheaper and a trade opportunity — but at global scale, such a grid will take a while to build.
      - holoduke 5y ago
        I hate to say it. I am not pro Russia at all, but its mainly the US who wants Russia to be removed so they can sell their goods to Europe. There no other reason. Luckily we see a larger movement of people recognizing this annoying behaviour of the US.
      - bpfrh 5y ago
        I can follow that, but isn't this problematic when there is a power needed when there is no wind/solar available for recharging and you still need more? e.g. we would need a much larger energy storage, than for gas?
        5y ago
  - pyrale 5y ago
    Batteries have both kW (speed of charge/discharge) and kWh properties. For instance, Lazard's LCOS studies [1] list both values. It's not illogical to compare a battery with the production it's supposed to replace. [1]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Indeed, but mixing units means it isn’t a comparison.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today" And yet the existing battery facilities that could keep a smallish region (or a single city) supplied for 15 minutes or more are exceedingly rare. Maybe they aren't as cheap as you claim. Australia is recently building a 1200 MW battery in New South Wales for 2.4 billion dollars - a cost comparable to a new nuclear reactor. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/worlds-biggest-battery-with-1200mw-capacity-set-to-be-built-in-nsw-hunter-valley-australia https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/world...
- deadfish 5y ago
  Looks like the cost of nuclear in Australia is not comparable. https://reneweconomy.com.au/too-slow-too-expensive-why-nuclear-power-makes-no-sense-for-australia/#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20creating%20energy,creation%20is%20%2416%2C000%20per%20kilowatt https://reneweconomy.com.au/too-slow-too-expensive-why-nucle....
  - berdario 5y ago
    I don't think we can trust these numbers https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Public%20Affairs/2019/Nuclear%20generation%20prerequisites%20House%20of%20Reps%20Inquiry%20(Cth%2C%20September%202019).pdf https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/re... "The spread of projected and reported capital costs is unsurprisingly broad. In Australia the most recent public assessment is provided by the GenCost2018 report by CSIRO and AEMO.10 It assumes the capital costs for SMR technology is $16,000/kW in 2020 (and experiences no major price decline over time). We note this number is more than double other cost estimates worldwide. We have sought additional clarification on the basis for this costing. Initial advice is that the number is based on a GHD estimate for AEMO of costs for a future Gen IV reactor to be constructed in 2035 and not for the type of reactor which would most likely be deployed in Australia." Anyhow, that 16k estimate is for power, not for energy... It's unclear over which timespans comparisons are being made (since a lot of it depends for how long power plants will be kept operational... A huge cost is the initial investment). I've seen energy estimates as low as 30$ per MWh, for Nuclear energy plants built with interest rates of 3%
unicornmama 5y ago
> Solar + Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today. That claim is baseless.
- Retric 5y ago
  Solar dropped below 2c/kWh in the kind of places you should actually install solar. It depends on interest rates but that’s shockingly low. Batteries provide peaking power cheaper than any rarely used peaking power plant. (2,000 charge cycles on a 100$/kWh battery charged from 2c/kWh solar is ~7c/kWh whenever you need it.) That’s all it takes for adoption to dramatically increase. Market forces will shift things around as ever more solar comes online, but as long as daytime rates are above nighttime rates solar is an obvious win for electric companies.
  - algo_trader 5y ago
    > 2,000 charge cycles on a 100$/kWh battery charged from 2c/kWh solar is ~7c/kWh whenever you need it. Well - no. The $100 is up front capex. Add interest rate over 10 years and the price doubles. This is just the module/pack price, and you need to add installation, cabinets, fire suppression, AC/DC and controllers. Which probably add 50% to 100%. Like wise the headline 2c/kWh is probably for ideal projects with ideal land/transmission/regulation/geography. It is also 70% generated in summer, and only 30% in the winter months. Renewable energy is important, getting cheaper and accelerating and This-Is-Good (TM), But real physics and economics still matter.
    - Retric 5y ago
      2000 cycles is 5.5 years at one cycle per day, though 2 cycles per day can also be useful at the cost of a very short lifespan. Even 5% interest rates above inflation only increase costs by around 14%. At scale batteries are effectively a fuel that needs continuous replacement, though related equipment can last much longer. Also, module/pack prices dominate installation and operating costs as PV operates on DC and therefore needs a DC/AC converter etc. Summer vs winter depends on geography, it’s largely meaningless between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. It does become increasingly important further north, though offset by the relative need for AC. By the time you’re seeing such wide production swings from summer to winter you are simply in a bad location for solar. PS: Actual charge vs discharge cycles of course vary widely as to various other costs.
belorn 5y ago
Solar + a few hours of capacity are economical viable to run on a day and night cycle. Each day they charge up, and each day they discharge, with a market price that goes up and down in a similar pattern. This is possible for the southern part of EU, but more so in the southern parts of that (Egypt and below). Further north and solar get displaced by wind as the primary source of energy, and wind do not have a day cycle. It has weeks/months long period of low and high amount of wind. A battery solution that last hours is just a drop in the supply bucket. At the same time, rather than being discharge (and thus generating profits) each day, a wind battery solution will only generate profits a few times each year depending on how large the capacity is. The only way that will be profitable is if it several order times cheaper than the batteries for solar, or if the cost isn't directly linked to capacity. The technology that Germany and other "wind" countries is constantly talking about here is green hydro, but which is yet to be economical viable. One alternative is to build massive transmission lines from Africa and use solar power + batteries from the Sahara desert, through there are political, technological, and economical problems over designing such energy grid for EU. Thus for now the political winds are blowing towards natural gas and wind, despite the ecological issues of burning a fossil fuel.
- 7952 5y ago
  Battery storage is profitable if you can sell for more than you buy. It just needs to be connected to the grid and not necessarily connected to a particular generator. Although battery storage may still be located close to generation. One benefit of this is that you get more benefit from your grid connection. Without batteries you can just export for a part of the day. With batteries you can export when it is sunny/windy, export when it is dark/not windy, and even import energy when wholesale prices are cheap. The expensive grid connection is better utilised.
- holoduke 5y ago
  Not true. We have 10kw solar panels with 64x ,280ah LIFO batteries. Even in the winter we manage for 90% using only solar/battery power. We have a detached family house in the Netherlands using slightly above average. Our monthly bill is about 20 euros max. I build the entire setup myself for about 10k euros.

retrac 5y ago

> Although I'm not sure if that's any more efficient than desalination/hydrolysis for an H2 plant with fuel cells. One can make more than methane. Heavier liquid fuels like methanol, which is a great gasoline analogue, can also be synthesized. Theoretically speaking, the most efficient way to split water is thermal decomposition at really, really high temperatures, with a catalyst. I've seen a variety of proposals to split water into hydrogen and fix the H2 as a hydrocarbon, with direct heating from both concentrated solar and nuclear. I don't know about the practical economics, though.

AstralStorm 5y ago
The trouble is that these hydrocarbon will just be burned like all others, causing GHG release. If you want something actually green, try ammonia via electrochemical methods, from hydrogen. This is also why these gas investments are a trap. We're already generally low on gas for winter and increasing the intake will not help, plus any operational emissions is too much and has to be optimized. 270 g CO2e is a plenty in a series of small deployments to ruin the targets.
- labawi 5y ago
  If methane is manufactured from CO₂ and H₂O, there is no net GHG release, it's just storage, same as ammonia or pure hydrogen (though large methane leaks would be a problem). IMO, methane is good, if we are actively transitioning to manufactured methane. It's a plug-in substitute with existing distribution networks, storage and consumers, easy and cheap to handle. Though efficiency is pretty bad, so it's mostly good as cheap bulk storage.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Methane is not manufactured from straight gases. Usually it is either mined or steam reformed from oil or coal. You can see the problem - mining with concomitant pollution and release of previously bound CO2 when it's burned. Attempting to do pure electrochemical reforming is extremely energy intensive, and requires rare metal membranes. As well as a way to concentrate CO2 from atmosphere reliably. (The Sleipnir problem.)