18 ms·

> Every kwh of solar and wind produced electricity right now is a kwh not produced by gas and will be for some time almost everywhere. That assumes that fossil

> Every kwh of solar and wind produced electricity right now is a kwh not produced by gas and will be for some time almost everywhere. That assumes that fossil plants can be switched off/on as you wish. They can't. Coal needs several days to start up / shut down and gas several hours.

natmaka 4y ago
Betting on coal is now a dangerous game. Gas rules, for now. Recent gas turbines are quite good: low-latency, free modulation, maintaining them in warm-start ready condition is quite cheap and does not emit much greenhouse gases. Moreover they will be retrofitted in order to burn green hydrogen.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Gas still produces pretty large amounts of greenhouse gases, even if it's a bit under half compared to coal: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20total%20U.S.%20electricity,CO2%20emissions%20per%20kWh https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11#:~:text=In.... Renewables without storage, but backed by gas when the renewables are not available, will perhaps cover 30-50% of the energy consumed in an area, depending on climate, etc. That reduces total greenhouse gases by about 75% compared to using only coal. But lets say we want to move to electric transportation, more and more people expect to have air conditioning and in general, we expect more energy to be consumed, this will mean that greenhouse gas emissions will still be high. Now, some people don't care much about global warming (or only pretend to care). In that case, the above setup is probably fine. (Even though it will be a bit more expensive than the most optimistic numbers from the proponents of this setup, due to extra expenses in the grid and due to the gas plants running below capacity half the time.) If you care enough about global warming to reach carbon neutrality, then obviously, gas plants are not a long term solution. In that case you need to go to fully renewable, or some combination of renewables and nuclear. If you want to go to fully renewable, you will need enough storage to cover ALL the variation in demand. In such a case levelized cost must cover, I would say, anything from 12 hours (for solar in deserts) to 48 hours or more. With current technology (and with the exception of a few places with plenty of hydro that can be pumped back), this will range from expensive (for 12 hours) to extremely expensive (for 48 hours or more). From what I can read from the storage costs, the levelized cost including 12 hours of storage (at the source) starts at about $0.2-$0.4 per kwh of consumption (meaning that it can store 12kwh for each kw of peak capacity). At the other end of the spectrum, standalonge storage of 48kwh for each 1kw of production capacity (like you may need for wind power, if it is quite intermittent), could cost over $3 per kwh of power produced. (48kWh * $643 / 2000kWh for "Industrial Standalone") https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/#:~:text=The%20former%20values%20average%20%2427,for%20combined%20cycle%20gas%20generation https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-.... I don't have number for hydrogen, but I don't think storing energy as hydrogen is cheaper than batteries. In other words, if you want to be fully carbon neutral, Nuclear is still the cheapest as long as the price of Nuclear is less than $0.2/kwh. Most numbers I've seen put the price of nuclear significantly lower than that. And in places that are not desert, the break even is much higher.
  - maliker 4y ago
    Great analysis, and I agree that renewable + storage is the right thing to compare against nuclear. I think the area where nuclear has the biggest potential to shine is competing with very long duration storage—e.g. month long underperformance of wind + solar up to seasonal differences in demand/renewable output. Battery self discharge is around 1% a day, so it could be totally impossible to use it to cover seasonal differences. I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. Plenty of opportunities left for the world to bet on the wrong technology. Leaving aside all the price variability and learning rates, there’s also the issue of how these technologies will perform hour to hour as renewable supply and demand changes (and more end uses like transportation switch away from fossil fuels). A truly hellish optimization problem. [0] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20-%20ESGC%20Cost%20Performance%20Report%2012-11-2020.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20...
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. From your number for hydrogen, I suppose batteries make more sense for "typical" variance, while hydrogen makes more sense for unusual periods of downtime (rain in the desert, more than 2-3 days without ANY wind). Also, it would make sense if most of the electrolysis would be performed in areas with high random variance in electricity production (typically wind). As you say, nuclear will have an advantage for longer in areas with highly seasonal variance. One advantage of hydrogen, though, is that it is relatively easy to transport to where it is needed. Still, by combining our numbers, it seems to me like for projects starting today, Nuclear is still competitive to, if not outright cheaper than renewables, if the goal is 100% carbon-free power within 10-20 years. Breakthroughs in battery production (or hydrogen production, but less likely), might change that. But then again, if Nuclear was built with enough volume, minimal corruption and with a rational balancing of cost/risk, the cost of nuclear should also come back down quite a bit. I definitely think it should be possible to reach levelized costs well under $0.1/kwh if contracts are given to international construction/operations companies able to utilize economies of scale.
- maliker 4y ago
  Gas also has staffing advantages over coal. A handful of people gan operate a bank of gas turbines; coal plants take dozens; nuke plants take hundreds.

natmaka 4y ago

Betting on coal is now a dangerous game. Gas rules, for now. Recent gas turbines are quite good: low-latency, free modulation, maintaining them in warm-start ready condition is quite cheap and does not emit much greenhouse gases. Moreover they will be retrofitted in order to burn green hydrogen.

trashtester 4y ago
Gas still produces pretty large amounts of greenhouse gases, even if it's a bit under half compared to coal: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20total%20U.S.%20electricity,CO2%20emissions%20per%20kWh https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11#:~:text=In.... Renewables without storage, but backed by gas when the renewables are not available, will perhaps cover 30-50% of the energy consumed in an area, depending on climate, etc. That reduces total greenhouse gases by about 75% compared to using only coal. But lets say we want to move to electric transportation, more and more people expect to have air conditioning and in general, we expect more energy to be consumed, this will mean that greenhouse gas emissions will still be high. Now, some people don't care much about global warming (or only pretend to care). In that case, the above setup is probably fine. (Even though it will be a bit more expensive than the most optimistic numbers from the proponents of this setup, due to extra expenses in the grid and due to the gas plants running below capacity half the time.) If you care enough about global warming to reach carbon neutrality, then obviously, gas plants are not a long term solution. In that case you need to go to fully renewable, or some combination of renewables and nuclear. If you want to go to fully renewable, you will need enough storage to cover ALL the variation in demand. In such a case levelized cost must cover, I would say, anything from 12 hours (for solar in deserts) to 48 hours or more. With current technology (and with the exception of a few places with plenty of hydro that can be pumped back), this will range from expensive (for 12 hours) to extremely expensive (for 48 hours or more). From what I can read from the storage costs, the levelized cost including 12 hours of storage (at the source) starts at about $0.2-$0.4 per kwh of consumption (meaning that it can store 12kwh for each kw of peak capacity). At the other end of the spectrum, standalonge storage of 48kwh for each 1kw of production capacity (like you may need for wind power, if it is quite intermittent), could cost over $3 per kwh of power produced. (48kWh * $643 / 2000kWh for "Industrial Standalone") https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/#:~:text=The%20former%20values%20average%20%2427,for%20combined%20cycle%20gas%20generation https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-.... I don't have number for hydrogen, but I don't think storing energy as hydrogen is cheaper than batteries. In other words, if you want to be fully carbon neutral, Nuclear is still the cheapest as long as the price of Nuclear is less than $0.2/kwh. Most numbers I've seen put the price of nuclear significantly lower than that. And in places that are not desert, the break even is much higher.
- maliker 4y ago
  Great analysis, and I agree that renewable + storage is the right thing to compare against nuclear. I think the area where nuclear has the biggest potential to shine is competing with very long duration storage—e.g. month long underperformance of wind + solar up to seasonal differences in demand/renewable output. Battery self discharge is around 1% a day, so it could be totally impossible to use it to cover seasonal differences. I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. Plenty of opportunities left for the world to bet on the wrong technology. Leaving aside all the price variability and learning rates, there’s also the issue of how these technologies will perform hour to hour as renewable supply and demand changes (and more end uses like transportation switch away from fossil fuels). A truly hellish optimization problem. [0] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20-%20ESGC%20Cost%20Performance%20Report%2012-11-2020.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20...
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. From your number for hydrogen, I suppose batteries make more sense for "typical" variance, while hydrogen makes more sense for unusual periods of downtime (rain in the desert, more than 2-3 days without ANY wind). Also, it would make sense if most of the electrolysis would be performed in areas with high random variance in electricity production (typically wind). As you say, nuclear will have an advantage for longer in areas with highly seasonal variance. One advantage of hydrogen, though, is that it is relatively easy to transport to where it is needed. Still, by combining our numbers, it seems to me like for projects starting today, Nuclear is still competitive to, if not outright cheaper than renewables, if the goal is 100% carbon-free power within 10-20 years. Breakthroughs in battery production (or hydrogen production, but less likely), might change that. But then again, if Nuclear was built with enough volume, minimal corruption and with a rational balancing of cost/risk, the cost of nuclear should also come back down quite a bit. I definitely think it should be possible to reach levelized costs well under $0.1/kwh if contracts are given to international construction/operations companies able to utilize economies of scale.
maliker 4y ago
Gas also has staffing advantages over coal. A handful of people gan operate a bank of gas turbines; coal plants take dozens; nuke plants take hundreds.