4 ms·

Because you can start a project with the existing, proven and expensive tech today. Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today (bar pumped-up hydro, which i

by sofixa 4y ago

Because you can start a project with the existing, proven and expensive tech today. Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today (bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations). There's lots of hope, and money should be invested in the various alternatives, absolutely. But nobody can say when and if that tech would be ready.

renewiltord 4y ago
According to this commenter, we can't build with the proven and expensive tech today because we don't have it any more https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31682876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31682876
- sofixa 4y ago
  Depends who. For EPR, we're almost over the hump, with the latest projects in Finland and France coming online and becoming fully operational in the near future. Rosatom has continued pumping out reactors at a decent rate.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Looks like they should do it and we shouldn't in America unless we can somehow allow them to build ours (I think a fear of competition will make this infeasible but if we're lucky we'll get the stuff).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
orthecreedence 4y ago
Storage is not not purely theoretical!! In fact there are <lists five completely theoretical storage methods that rely on stable climate or perfect geography>.
epistasis 4y ago
This is inaccurate, GW scale batteries could be deployed today, but because storage is so scalable it's often a better idea to build multiple smaller batteries that help alleviate grid congestion.
- belorn 4y ago
  A month or so back someone posted a report by a financial investing advisor for the energy sector, and they were pretty clear what is and what isn't economical viable right now. Solar + storage of 1-6 hrs can be made economical viable as long as the storage can have 365 discharge cycles each year, assuming prices get high enough each such cycle. Each unit of storage get a return on investment each day, and each are used fully at the point in time when the market price is at peak. Under those precise circumstances the economics of storage is cheaper than nuclear. The only other cheaper alternative to nuclear is to use renewables when the weather is optimal and fossil fuel when the weather is not optimal, or just use fossil fuels (through that is just a waste of money and the climate). Naturally this advisor firm could be wrong and someone here could start the world first economical viable operation that uses wind for renewables and then charge a reverse hydro operation. It would make for a nice news item.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Making such broad statements about economical versus not economical is difficult, because batteries serve so many purposes and have so many revenue streams that deployment is highly locational, depending on the specifics of the grid and where and when demand causes congestion. There's also little incentive to install storage when solar and wind penetration is low, but as higher percentages of the grid is powered by renewables, then storage quickly becomes far more attractive. Currently, there are 14.5GW of batteries in development across the US, and this is just a tiny nascent industry. Even as a small industry, this is many times the power capacity of nuclear currently in development. This biggest challenge with batteries right now is low supply, and competing with demand from EV production, which provides higher margins: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-battery-shortage-is-hampering-us-switch-wind-solar-power-2022-06-09/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-ba...
pydry 4y ago
>Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations Viable locations arent in short supply at all: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-to-meet-all-our-renewable-energy-needs https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...
- sofixa 4y ago
  They aren't in short supply, but aren't present everywhere - e.g. in Europe there's nothing north of Slovakia. If Denmark wants storage, they have to work with other countries and rely on transit. It's even worse for the Baltics.
  - raphaelj 4y ago
    Well, that also applies if Denmark wants uranium, oil or gas.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    Norway, UK and Ireland aren't in Europe? Edit: I was a bit puzzled as there are already pumped-storage plants in Wales and Scotland with more planned.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    You make it sound like it's some burden while the EU grid is actually a single market with a significant expansion last year: https://www.tennet.eu/our-grid/international-connections/nordlink/ https://www.tennet.eu/our-grid/international-connections/nor...
  - freemint 4y ago
    You know that you can just pump all the water Denmark has. Build underground caverns full with air, let water in for energy and pump it out later.
jeffbee 4y ago
This is really not correct at all. Half of the utility-scale generating projects waiting for interconnect approval are combined solar and battery installation. Grid-scale storage is a solved problem, technically and economically. There were over 400GW of grid storage project proposed in the U.S. at the end of 2021.
Krasnol 4y ago
You make it sound like it's some SciFi tech where in reality Germany has replaced half of it's whole production with true green energy in the last two decades. Replacing nuclear years ago.
- larsrc 4y ago
  That's inaccurate. Germany has replaced half of its _electricity_ production with renewables (modulo dispatchability), but electricity only accounts for a quarter of the energy usage. We frequently have to import electricity from France now, where it's largely made by nuclear, and electricity in France is a lot cheaper than here. Closing the German nuclear plants was grand scale stupid.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    I may have been inaccurate but you are wrong. We buy sometimes electricity from France on the EEX because it's cheap. Not because we lac electricity. We actually sell more than we buy and that never changed. France has to sell cheap because they can't shut down their rotting fleet. They HAVE to produce and they HAVE to sell. Even when the price is low. This is just another reason why the company running this hilarious "business" is bankrupt. Germany has long ago replaced what nuclear has produced. The only thing we HAVE to buy is gas because we need it for heating. Something nuclear can't replace since we don't even have 5% electrical heating in this country.
    - larsrc 4y ago
      Nuclear could provide heat if people weren't all NIMBY about it. A dual-cycle reactor produces a lot of hot steam, perfect for Fernwärme.
    - larsrc 4y ago
      I'd like to see a reference for them having to produce. According to https://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-in-france-what-did-they-get-right https://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-in-france..., they operate in load-following mode and sometimes simply shut down over weekends.

by sofixa 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

According to this commenter, we can't build with the proven and expensive tech today because we don't have it any more https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31682876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31682876

sofixa 4y ago
Depends who. For EPR, we're almost over the hump, with the latest projects in Finland and France coming online and becoming fully operational in the near future. Rosatom has continued pumping out reactors at a decent rate.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Looks like they should do it and we shouldn't in America unless we can somehow allow them to build ours (I think a fear of competition will make this infeasible but if we're lucky we'll get the stuff).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

orthecreedence 4y ago

Storage is not not purely theoretical!! In fact there are <lists five completely theoretical storage methods that rely on stable climate or perfect geography>.

epistasis 4y ago

This is inaccurate, GW scale batteries could be deployed today, but because storage is so scalable it's often a better idea to build multiple smaller batteries that help alleviate grid congestion.

belorn 4y ago
A month or so back someone posted a report by a financial investing advisor for the energy sector, and they were pretty clear what is and what isn't economical viable right now. Solar + storage of 1-6 hrs can be made economical viable as long as the storage can have 365 discharge cycles each year, assuming prices get high enough each such cycle. Each unit of storage get a return on investment each day, and each are used fully at the point in time when the market price is at peak. Under those precise circumstances the economics of storage is cheaper than nuclear. The only other cheaper alternative to nuclear is to use renewables when the weather is optimal and fossil fuel when the weather is not optimal, or just use fossil fuels (through that is just a waste of money and the climate). Naturally this advisor firm could be wrong and someone here could start the world first economical viable operation that uses wind for renewables and then charge a reverse hydro operation. It would make for a nice news item.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Making such broad statements about economical versus not economical is difficult, because batteries serve so many purposes and have so many revenue streams that deployment is highly locational, depending on the specifics of the grid and where and when demand causes congestion. There's also little incentive to install storage when solar and wind penetration is low, but as higher percentages of the grid is powered by renewables, then storage quickly becomes far more attractive. Currently, there are 14.5GW of batteries in development across the US, and this is just a tiny nascent industry. Even as a small industry, this is many times the power capacity of nuclear currently in development. This biggest challenge with batteries right now is low supply, and competing with demand from EV production, which provides higher margins: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-battery-shortage-is-hampering-us-switch-wind-solar-power-2022-06-09/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-ba...

pydry 4y ago

>Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations Viable locations arent in short supply at all: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-to-meet-all-our-renewable-energy-needs https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

sofixa 4y ago
They aren't in short supply, but aren't present everywhere - e.g. in Europe there's nothing north of Slovakia. If Denmark wants storage, they have to work with other countries and rely on transit. It's even worse for the Baltics.
- raphaelj 4y ago
  Well, that also applies if Denmark wants uranium, oil or gas.
- arethuza 4y ago
  Norway, UK and Ireland aren't in Europe? Edit: I was a bit puzzled as there are already pumped-storage plants in Wales and Scotland with more planned.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  You make it sound like it's some burden while the EU grid is actually a single market with a significant expansion last year: https://www.tennet.eu/our-grid/international-connections/nordlink/ https://www.tennet.eu/our-grid/international-connections/nor...
- freemint 4y ago
  You know that you can just pump all the water Denmark has. Build underground caverns full with air, let water in for energy and pump it out later.

jeffbee 4y ago

This is really not correct at all. Half of the utility-scale generating projects waiting for interconnect approval are combined solar and battery installation. Grid-scale storage is a solved problem, technically and economically. There were over 400GW of grid storage project proposed in the U.S. at the end of 2021.

Krasnol 4y ago

You make it sound like it's some SciFi tech where in reality Germany has replaced half of it's whole production with true green energy in the last two decades. Replacing nuclear years ago.

larsrc 4y ago
That's inaccurate. Germany has replaced half of its _electricity_ production with renewables (modulo dispatchability), but electricity only accounts for a quarter of the energy usage. We frequently have to import electricity from France now, where it's largely made by nuclear, and electricity in France is a lot cheaper than here. Closing the German nuclear plants was grand scale stupid.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  I may have been inaccurate but you are wrong. We buy sometimes electricity from France on the EEX because it's cheap. Not because we lac electricity. We actually sell more than we buy and that never changed. France has to sell cheap because they can't shut down their rotting fleet. They HAVE to produce and they HAVE to sell. Even when the price is low. This is just another reason why the company running this hilarious "business" is bankrupt. Germany has long ago replaced what nuclear has produced. The only thing we HAVE to buy is gas because we need it for heating. Something nuclear can't replace since we don't even have 5% electrical heating in this country.
  - larsrc 4y ago
    Nuclear could provide heat if people weren't all NIMBY about it. A dual-cycle reactor produces a lot of hot steam, perfect for Fernwärme.
  - larsrc 4y ago
    I'd like to see a reference for them having to produce. According to https://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-in-france-what-did-they-get-right https://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-in-france..., they operate in load-following mode and sometimes simply shut down over weekends.