6 ms·

The article on the site about solar is equally bad. Both are full of lots of good information but then have some key misunderstandings. The solar article doesn'

The article on the site about solar is equally bad. Both are full of lots of good information but then have some key misunderstandings. The solar article doesn't acknowledge that installing a solar requires installing a gas peaker plant on the grid as well. [1] Although solar certainly reduces carbon emissions (the gas peaker plants only runs some of the time), the result is that the cost to the grid, rather than being the lowest, could be one of the highest depending on how the math actually works out. Battery can be installed instead of peaker plants, but the prices of raw materials for batteries have increased dramatically recently and it isn't possible for the mining of battery materials to keep up with the future demand. Tesla's car prices are shooting up- even though they are building huge battery factories to drive down price- it's not enough- they are now exploring mining Lithium, having already bought mining rights for it in Nevada. [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22454/w22454.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22454/w224... Does anyone have a more up to date citation?

cycomanic 4y ago
Gas peaker plants are needed for nuclear just as much. Generally the article is looking at the most favourable conditions for the technology, e.g. only considering OCC and not interest cost for building and decommissioning of nuclear plants.
- LilBytes 4y ago
  You're going to have to source this because there's been absolutely no need for gas plants in the two cities I've lived in that were both powdered by nuclear in Europe.
  - croes 4y ago
    Energy networks are not city-specific but are cross-national. Or are these cities self-sufficient and not connected to the rest of the grid?
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    It's right there in the article, but it seems many here commenting did not even read it: Many US nuclear plants are incapable of cycling power output up or down without changes to procedures or equipment.
    - pharke 4y ago
      Where? Searching for 'peak' returns no results and going through the results for 'gas' doesn't turn up anything about peaker plants for nuclear.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        I just cited the section in my post. US nuclear plants can not follow load at all, some European ones have some ability, but it's generally not enough. If you compare France and Germany gas portion of the overall electricity production is quite similar (it's a bit tricky to compare, Germany produced 12% and France 7% but in different years, France gas accounts to 10% of their installed capacity)
- gregwebs 4y ago
  Nuclear is producing 100% output during peak power needs. Solar varies greatly but in the winter may be producing little output during peak power needs. So yes, a 100% all the time output requires peaking, but a variable power source that is not producing during peak times requires much more.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The site actually has several articles about why this specific criticism is silly. To summarize: we already have gas plants, and gas storage, leaving them turned off except as a fallback insurance is the sensible option. Even when building new plants, gas plants are the cheapest to build and simplest to run which matters a lot if they're mostly idle, which is why they get used as peakers. https://austinvernon.site/blog/gasredemption.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/gasredemption.html I don't agree with everything they write (they seem to think "virtue signaling“ is a real thing and that renewables had nothing to do with sensible government regulation but rather the free market which reveals a bias that runs through their conclusions) but the facts are fairly incontrovertible if you actually look at them so they come to the reasonable conclusions anyway.
- gregwebs 4y ago
  That’s another mostly great article you linked to. Still though it doesn’t mention the dramatic cost increase of natural gas plants when used as a peaker instead of always-on, and it assumes we can produce as many batteries as we want. It also assumes we can continue producing massive amounts of natural gas in the US and export huge amounts to the rest of the world. The author's article on renewables and batteries states "The cost of these batteries is plummeting. Material constraints are not an issue because storage batteries do not require top-tier energy density" [1]. This was reasonable to think just two years ago but now is obviously wrong- and this assumption underpins most of the author's writings on energy. Energy policy is very unforgiving- missing one important fact or one wrong assumption can dramatically alter the outcome. [1] https://austinvernon.site/blog/renewablevariation.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/renewablevariation.html
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    I'm not aware of anything occuring in the last couple of years that put a hard limit on battery construction due to material constraints. Could you be more specific about what you mean?
    - gregwebs 4y ago

cycomanic 4y ago

Gas peaker plants are needed for nuclear just as much. Generally the article is looking at the most favourable conditions for the technology, e.g. only considering OCC and not interest cost for building and decommissioning of nuclear plants.

LilBytes 4y ago
You're going to have to source this because there's been absolutely no need for gas plants in the two cities I've lived in that were both powdered by nuclear in Europe.
- croes 4y ago
  Energy networks are not city-specific but are cross-national. Or are these cities self-sufficient and not connected to the rest of the grid?
- cycomanic 4y ago
  It's right there in the article, but it seems many here commenting did not even read it: Many US nuclear plants are incapable of cycling power output up or down without changes to procedures or equipment.
  - pharke 4y ago
    Where? Searching for 'peak' returns no results and going through the results for 'gas' doesn't turn up anything about peaker plants for nuclear.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      I just cited the section in my post. US nuclear plants can not follow load at all, some European ones have some ability, but it's generally not enough. If you compare France and Germany gas portion of the overall electricity production is quite similar (it's a bit tricky to compare, Germany produced 12% and France 7% but in different years, France gas accounts to 10% of their installed capacity)
gregwebs 4y ago
Nuclear is producing 100% output during peak power needs. Solar varies greatly but in the winter may be producing little output during peak power needs. So yes, a 100% all the time output requires peaking, but a variable power source that is not producing during peak times requires much more.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The site actually has several articles about why this specific criticism is silly. To summarize: we already have gas plants, and gas storage, leaving them turned off except as a fallback insurance is the sensible option. Even when building new plants, gas plants are the cheapest to build and simplest to run which matters a lot if they're mostly idle, which is why they get used as peakers. https://austinvernon.site/blog/gasredemption.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/gasredemption.html I don't agree with everything they write (they seem to think "virtue signaling“ is a real thing and that renewables had nothing to do with sensible government regulation but rather the free market which reveals a bias that runs through their conclusions) but the facts are fairly incontrovertible if you actually look at them so they come to the reasonable conclusions anyway.

gregwebs 4y ago
That’s another mostly great article you linked to. Still though it doesn’t mention the dramatic cost increase of natural gas plants when used as a peaker instead of always-on, and it assumes we can produce as many batteries as we want. It also assumes we can continue producing massive amounts of natural gas in the US and export huge amounts to the rest of the world. The author's article on renewables and batteries states "The cost of these batteries is plummeting. Material constraints are not an issue because storage batteries do not require top-tier energy density" [1]. This was reasonable to think just two years ago but now is obviously wrong- and this assumption underpins most of the author's writings on energy. Energy policy is very unforgiving- missing one important fact or one wrong assumption can dramatically alter the outcome. [1] https://austinvernon.site/blog/renewablevariation.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/renewablevariation.html
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I'm not aware of anything occuring in the last couple of years that put a hard limit on battery construction due to material constraints. Could you be more specific about what you mean?
  - gregwebs 4y ago