4 ms·

Energy storage is expensive. Nuclear is expensive. Solar and wind are cheap. If we are going to need energy storage regardless (we will), then why not combine i

Energy storage is expensive. Nuclear is expensive. Solar and wind are cheap. If we are going to need energy storage regardless (we will), then why not combine it with the cheapest sources rather than the most expensive?

godelski 5y ago
There's another factor in the equation that you're not considering. "How much battery storage". The equation is finding an optima on a(cost of nuclear) + b(cost of renewables) + c(cost of storage). Restricting the equation to just aN + c_NS vs bR + c_RS is rather absurd (only something laypeople do and not something people in the energy community do). But in that case we can easily see that c_N << c_R, since nuclear provides a baseline storage. This brings us back to using the systems to complement one another (aN + bR + cS). After all, the goal is to get zero emission energy at the cheapest value, not energy at the cheapest value.
- qqqwerty 5y ago
  I did consider it, I work in the energy industry after all. But even your equation over simplifies things considerably. Things like cost over time (batteries are likely to get much cheaper in the future, whereas solar and nuclear are not likely to decrease much), and deployment characteristics (much easier/cheaper for the grid to add small incremental solar+wind+storage deployments over time then to add large individual nuclear deployments once or twice a decade) I am fully supportive of using whatever technology that gets us to a zero carbon grid as quickly as possible. And right now the most advanced research in this area is suggesting that renewables + storage is our best bet.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Why is solar not likely to decrease much? If the historical experience curve continues there's still room for a factor of several decrease in its cost.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      It would not be surprising if costs for storage fell much more than photovoltaics, over the next decade, and for the same reasons as for the latter.
      - godelski 5y ago
        In fact, cost of storage is expected to fall over the next following decade or two. Problem is, we needed to start solving climate 50 years ago. We don't have time to wait another 10 to 20 years. We now are forced to go the unoptimal route and more expensive.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Storage costs are plummeting already. But because generating capacity is now so cheap, we can afford expensive storage construction. Storage typically has very low operating cost, but is just now expensive to build. So, it will be cheaper to build storage later, but anything built this year will continue operating.
    - qqqwerty 5y ago
      Solar is already dirt cheap, and there is not much more juice left to squeeze. We might get a little bit more cost reduction over the next decade, maybe somewhere in the 10-50% range, but this isn't much compared the multiple hundreds of % that we saw over the last two decades. Also, at least in the short term, we are seeing some increases in cost due to supply chain and inflation issues.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        You're just repeating the assertion there. What fundamentally prevents the cost of solar from falling even more? This cost has to come from some irreducible input. Materials? Energy? Labor? Which is it? As for cost of delivered energy from solar, there is a final reduction that can still be obtained even if the cost/watt were to plateau immediately: extension of the lifespan of the system. This could be obtained by, over time, identifying and addressing all the degradation modes of the components of the system.
- caoilte 5y ago
  You make a good point about nuclear potentially requiring less storage since it (in theory) provides a constant power. Unfortunately, whilst nuclear power tends to be constant while it is on, it still goes down a lot either for servicing (planned or unplanned) or because of lack of cooling water (a problem that's going to get much worse due to climate change). Worse when there is a lack of cooling water it tends to affect lots of nuclear plants simultaneously (eg France). So in total, Nuclear is just as reliant on grid inter-connectors as solar/wind to perform optimally. The difference is that solar/wind are sooooo much cheaper you can now build solar/wind/interconnectors/storage and still come in cheaper than nuclear. No country in the world ever figured out how to build out nuclear power efficiently and in the last ten years the decline in solar/wind/storage costs has been astronomical. That's why Nuclear is going nowhere. If we were to give storage plants subsidies at a level with what nuclear receives, there wouldn't even be a discussion about this.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    If you have 30 reactors, maybe 3 are going down due to maintenance or other random reason. 90% capacity factor. If wind doesn't blow over Europe, you can have 15% overall capacity factor.
    - qqqwerty 5y ago
      Fortunately no one is suggesting we go 100% wind. Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, storage. Plus some nuclear if it is already built. That is what folks are recommending. If new build nuclear can compete, then great. But right now it can't, and models show we can get there without it.
  - opo 5y ago
    >...it still goes down a lot either for servicing (planned or unplanned) or because of lack of cooling water Unclear what you are basing that on. Nuclear energy has by far the highest capacity factor of any energy source and its not even close: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... >...The difference is that solar/wind are sooooo much cheaper The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is higher than nuclear, but that cost doesn't matter? https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... Modern society is dependent on 100% reliable power. Even that relatively small blackout in Texas caused: >...At least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly,[3] with some estimates as high as 702 killed as a result of the crisis.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis If we were to rely just on solar and wind, the low capacity factor would likely require massive grid storage. The only large scale grid storage we have at this point is pumped hydro and that isn't scalable. For example, one estimate is that for Germany to rely on solar and wind would require about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is literally 183 times their current capacity. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5950.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5... If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago. Overbuilding could alleviate some of this, particularly the natural variations in seasonal energy output, but obviously this would be a multiplier to the cost and it won't get more power from solar at night, etc. As Bill Gates said in an interview: "…They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need... Gates is investing in 4th gen nuclear and energy storage companies so he is at least putting his money where his mouth is. The goal should be to decarbonize the electrical grid while maintaining the reliability we depend upon.
rr808 5y ago
> Solar and wind are cheap They're cheap on sunny windy days. On a cold frosty night solar and wind are very expensive.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  And that's why you add storage. The cost of storage need not be that low to push new nuclear entirely out of the picture. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
> If we are going to need energy storage regardless (we will) Why? Couldn't we just go all in on nuclear?
- philipkglass 5y ago
  A couple of reasons: - You'll need to manufacture terawatt hours of batteries anyway to replace all the internal combustion cars on the road, regardless of whether you charge those cars with nuclear electricity or renewable electricity. - Nuclear power plants make for very expensive peak generating resources. They're only affordable for covering the minimum ("baseload") demand that is always there on the electrical grid. Consider demand on California's CAISO grid. On a hot summer day like 2019-08-15 air conditioning pushes the peak demand over 44 gigawatts. On the same day, the early predawn load is 20 gigawatts lower at 24 gigawatts. And on a cool day like 2022-02-06, the minimum demand is down to 16 gigawatts while the whole day average is well below 23. You can use the date picker to look at "Demand trend" for different days here: http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/index.html http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/index.html Only ~16 gigawatts of generating output will definitely get consumed all the time, but you still need to plan for those hot days that need 44+ gigawatts. It's theoretically possible to build 45 GW of reactors and use the full capacity for just a few hours a year, but that's very expensive. It's much more economical to have only 16 GW of reactors and use other electricity sources to meet higher demand, but that's bad for the climate when "other sources" includes fossil fueled power plants like it currently does. Nuclear plus storage would be much more affordable than using 100% nuclear without storage, and it would be cleaner than using fossil fuel peakers.

godelski 5y ago

There's another factor in the equation that you're not considering. "How much battery storage". The equation is finding an optima on a(cost of nuclear) + b(cost of renewables) + c(cost of storage). Restricting the equation to just aN + c_NS vs bR + c_RS is rather absurd (only something laypeople do and not something people in the energy community do). But in that case we can easily see that c_N << c_R, since nuclear provides a baseline storage. This brings us back to using the systems to complement one another (aN + bR + cS). After all, the goal is to get zero emission energy at the cheapest value, not energy at the cheapest value.

qqqwerty 5y ago
I did consider it, I work in the energy industry after all. But even your equation over simplifies things considerably. Things like cost over time (batteries are likely to get much cheaper in the future, whereas solar and nuclear are not likely to decrease much), and deployment characteristics (much easier/cheaper for the grid to add small incremental solar+wind+storage deployments over time then to add large individual nuclear deployments once or twice a decade) I am fully supportive of using whatever technology that gets us to a zero carbon grid as quickly as possible. And right now the most advanced research in this area is suggesting that renewables + storage is our best bet.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Why is solar not likely to decrease much? If the historical experience curve continues there's still room for a factor of several decrease in its cost.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    It would not be surprising if costs for storage fell much more than photovoltaics, over the next decade, and for the same reasons as for the latter.
    - godelski 5y ago
      In fact, cost of storage is expected to fall over the next following decade or two. Problem is, we needed to start solving climate 50 years ago. We don't have time to wait another 10 to 20 years. We now are forced to go the unoptimal route and more expensive.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Storage costs are plummeting already. But because generating capacity is now so cheap, we can afford expensive storage construction. Storage typically has very low operating cost, but is just now expensive to build. So, it will be cheaper to build storage later, but anything built this year will continue operating.
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    Solar is already dirt cheap, and there is not much more juice left to squeeze. We might get a little bit more cost reduction over the next decade, maybe somewhere in the 10-50% range, but this isn't much compared the multiple hundreds of % that we saw over the last two decades. Also, at least in the short term, we are seeing some increases in cost due to supply chain and inflation issues.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      You're just repeating the assertion there. What fundamentally prevents the cost of solar from falling even more? This cost has to come from some irreducible input. Materials? Energy? Labor? Which is it? As for cost of delivered energy from solar, there is a final reduction that can still be obtained even if the cost/watt were to plateau immediately: extension of the lifespan of the system. This could be obtained by, over time, identifying and addressing all the degradation modes of the components of the system.
caoilte 5y ago
You make a good point about nuclear potentially requiring less storage since it (in theory) provides a constant power. Unfortunately, whilst nuclear power tends to be constant while it is on, it still goes down a lot either for servicing (planned or unplanned) or because of lack of cooling water (a problem that's going to get much worse due to climate change). Worse when there is a lack of cooling water it tends to affect lots of nuclear plants simultaneously (eg France). So in total, Nuclear is just as reliant on grid inter-connectors as solar/wind to perform optimally. The difference is that solar/wind are sooooo much cheaper you can now build solar/wind/interconnectors/storage and still come in cheaper than nuclear. No country in the world ever figured out how to build out nuclear power efficiently and in the last ten years the decline in solar/wind/storage costs has been astronomical. That's why Nuclear is going nowhere. If we were to give storage plants subsidies at a level with what nuclear receives, there wouldn't even be a discussion about this.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  If you have 30 reactors, maybe 3 are going down due to maintenance or other random reason. 90% capacity factor. If wind doesn't blow over Europe, you can have 15% overall capacity factor.
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    Fortunately no one is suggesting we go 100% wind. Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, storage. Plus some nuclear if it is already built. That is what folks are recommending. If new build nuclear can compete, then great. But right now it can't, and models show we can get there without it.
- opo 5y ago
  >...it still goes down a lot either for servicing (planned or unplanned) or because of lack of cooling water Unclear what you are basing that on. Nuclear energy has by far the highest capacity factor of any energy source and its not even close: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... >...The difference is that solar/wind are sooooo much cheaper The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is higher than nuclear, but that cost doesn't matter? https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... Modern society is dependent on 100% reliable power. Even that relatively small blackout in Texas caused: >...At least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly,[3] with some estimates as high as 702 killed as a result of the crisis.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis If we were to rely just on solar and wind, the low capacity factor would likely require massive grid storage. The only large scale grid storage we have at this point is pumped hydro and that isn't scalable. For example, one estimate is that for Germany to rely on solar and wind would require about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is literally 183 times their current capacity. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5950.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5... If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago. Overbuilding could alleviate some of this, particularly the natural variations in seasonal energy output, but obviously this would be a multiplier to the cost and it won't get more power from solar at night, etc. As Bill Gates said in an interview: "…They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need... Gates is investing in 4th gen nuclear and energy storage companies so he is at least putting his money where his mouth is. The goal should be to decarbonize the electrical grid while maintaining the reliability we depend upon.

rr808 5y ago

> Solar and wind are cheap They're cheap on sunny windy days. On a cold frosty night solar and wind are very expensive.

pfdietz 5y ago
And that's why you add storage. The cost of storage need not be that low to push new nuclear entirely out of the picture. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

> If we are going to need energy storage regardless (we will) Why? Couldn't we just go all in on nuclear?

philipkglass 5y ago
A couple of reasons: - You'll need to manufacture terawatt hours of batteries anyway to replace all the internal combustion cars on the road, regardless of whether you charge those cars with nuclear electricity or renewable electricity. - Nuclear power plants make for very expensive peak generating resources. They're only affordable for covering the minimum ("baseload") demand that is always there on the electrical grid. Consider demand on California's CAISO grid. On a hot summer day like 2019-08-15 air conditioning pushes the peak demand over 44 gigawatts. On the same day, the early predawn load is 20 gigawatts lower at 24 gigawatts. And on a cool day like 2022-02-06, the minimum demand is down to 16 gigawatts while the whole day average is well below 23. You can use the date picker to look at "Demand trend" for different days here: http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/index.html http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/index.html Only ~16 gigawatts of generating output will definitely get consumed all the time, but you still need to plan for those hot days that need 44+ gigawatts. It's theoretically possible to build 45 GW of reactors and use the full capacity for just a few hours a year, but that's very expensive. It's much more economical to have only 16 GW of reactors and use other electricity sources to meet higher demand, but that's bad for the climate when "other sources" includes fossil fueled power plants like it currently does. Nuclear plus storage would be much more affordable than using 100% nuclear without storage, and it would be cleaner than using fossil fuel peakers.