5 ms·

>...wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year. Unclear how much variab

by opo 4y ago

>...wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year. Unclear how much variability there is over time or will be in the future with climate change. The estimate is that over a wide enough area the occurrence of zero power hours is greatly reduced but it doesn't claim that wind is sufficient to provide baseline power production. We will see I guess. >...Denmark already produces 55% of its electricity thanks to wind and targets 84% by 2035 The capacity factor for wind power is still low in Denmark. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity. This works for Denmark, but not every country will be so lucky to have neighbors with nuclear and hydro capability. For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only 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. In order for everyone to only use intermittent energy sources though, it will be necessary. >> the goal is really to decarbonize the grid >It is a goal, not the (single) goal. It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using fossil fuels to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. In that case - great, problem solved! But... what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?

natmaka 4y ago
> If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year They selected 2011 as representative and detailed it, however the underlying numerical series cover decades (see the 'Ninja' project https://www.renewables.ninja/ https://www.renewables.ninja/ ) > how much variability ((...) will be in the future with climate change Indeed, there is a non-negligible challenge here. It is also true for nuclear, for example when it comes to cool a reactor down: water ill be more and more scarce, heating it isn't neutral, installing a reactor on seashore exposes it to sea level rise... > capacity factor Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste. >. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity. Yes, and each and every clean energy source type now needs such a backup. No industrialized nation (bar maybe very low-population density coupled with huge natural resources, mainly hydro) can produce all its electricity without either not negligible curtailment or burning fossil fuel in 'backup' powerplants. Even hugely-nuclearized France could never, cannot (and don't even plan to) produce all its electricity thanks to nuclear: around 9% of their electricity is produced by backup 'thermal' plants: gas (methane), oil, coal, see https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... ), either due to load-following or peak consumption. > For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only on solar and wind AFAI no nation targets such an ordeal, they plan to reduce the need for backup units to an acceptable (and always lower) level thanks to production units geographic spread-out, mix (solar, wind...), storage (including V2G) and low-impact curtailment. > If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap), and also as some rather recent advances (network management enabling better integration of intermittent sources, low-loss long-haul powerlines ((U)HVDC...) facilitate such projects. Applying nuclear reactors to real-world problems (in submarines, aircraft carriers and ice breakers) date back the 1950's, and the very same reactor architecture (PWR) wasn't adopted as the main type of electricity-production unit before the 1970's. > (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. > If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power? For the time being, and quite probably for (at best) the next 20 years, there is no such option. Nuclear produces about 2.2% of world's total final consumed energy, with approx running 450 reactors. In order for it to produce about 22% we need to build approx 4500 reactors. This isn't even an option. France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040...
- opo 4y ago
  >> capacity factor >Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste. Not really. Capacity factor affects everything about a power source - it is stilly to pretend it is not a big deal. If you have to overbuild by a factor of N, that obviously increases the cost, land use, etc by that factor. If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs by those billions of dollars. Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor. >> If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago >No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap), Even when the power sources weren't intermittent, there were still many reasons to try and develop grid storage. Plants offline due to maintenance, differences in demand over a 24 hour period, seasonal differences in demand, etc. Any power plant is obviously a huge capital cost and having to build extra plants is not anyone's preference. The goal for having grid storage is why pumped hydro was developed over 100 years ago. In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage. If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have been using it for a long time. >> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? >It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. You didn't actually answer the question. If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them. France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power. We will see how many nuclear plants China builds over the next 20 years. >France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040... In 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight. Admittedly politics always gets involved in this kind of thing and technology is always changing, so we will see how many they actually build.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    > it is stilly to pretend it is not a big deal Let's see what is silly here. I wrote "way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) (and doesn't produce) waste", let's check the details: > overbuild > that obviously increases the cost, land use, etc by that factor. The capacity factor, by itself, means nothing because its impact isn't direct: it is applied to some costs, emissions and land use. The costs of renewables is very low and declining (nuclear is high and raising), therefore the fact that a given production unit isn't always active doesn't cost. See the total cost of the energy produced (integrating capacity/load factors): https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 Same for their emissions, which are calculated by unit of energy produced and therefore also taking into account their capacity/load factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity#Electric_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity#Electric_ge... As for land use the main renewable reserve in nearly all nations are offshore wind which doesn't use land, or hydraulics. Moreover in most nations there are unused/unusable zones, even on buildings/parking lots/arable zones (photovoltaics)/... > If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs Indeed, and that's the reason why the very fact that the total cost of the energy produced by renewable energy sources is low (and declining) is of paramount importance because it offers financial provisions to compensate this. The rest (no risk of major accident (nor risk of any terrorist/military attack triggering it), no dangerous waste, no dependency towards sources of uranium, no daunting decommissions, no hypercentralisation nor heavy bureaucracy necessary...) comes as a bonus. > Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor. Absolutely, my thesis is not that such a strategy isn't always sound, it is that a low capacity/load factor isn't, by itself, a show-stopper. > Even when the power sources weren't intermittent, there were still many reasons to try and develop grid storage Yes, and it lowers the costs of the huge grid beneficial to renewable sources, because a quite large grid is good whatever the type of source (renewable or not). In Europe the case is particularly clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid > In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage. Because fossil fuels are so convenient for storage... and we then neglected carbon emissions. Now that peak oil/gas and climate are threatening, our attitude towards fossil fuel has to change. > If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have been using it for a long time. This is not sound as the objectives (avoiding emitting carbon...) and technical constraints (wind turbine and solar panels now available are much more efficient and industrial than those available even only 25 years ago) were different than ours: fossil fuels were considered vastly superior. They aren't anymore. Same for storage: as the need for it raises, gorillas appear in the room (see batteries https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline , green hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen , V2G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ...) >>> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? >> It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. > You didn't actually answer IMHO I did, bar any other option than nuclear or renewable sources. Can you name one? > If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them. In which wonderland 'wanting to' is equivalent to 'being able to'? > France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power This is not exactly comparable. France built a nuclear fleet in 25 years (1974-1999) See https://web.archive.org/web/20211225120958/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://web.archive.org/web/20211225120958/https://upload.wi... France was then equipped with heavy industry (it isn't anymore ), financially at ease (after the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ) while it now deeply indebted, facing a way smoother challenge (the amount of electricity consumed was then a third of what it now it, moreover there was no 'electrification' (replacing all fossil fuels uses by electricity) real plan) and pushed by a major strategic risk (Arabs/Israel - triggered risk of oil embargo) while climate wasn't really a thing for long (and facts show that it really isn't yet). This nuclear fleet then produced up to 90% of their gridpower. Note: this electricity is 25% of the total amount of final energy consumed in France. As for present times France tries, since 2005, to build a reactor in Finland and it is a major failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant?wprov=srpw1_0#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant?... another one in France and this is another major failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... 2 reactors were built in China (60% overbudget, 5 year late, 1 reactor stopped since mid-2017 after and incident and the other one in low-power mode for the same reason). The more recently launched project, in the U.K. is already drifting away and serious doubts about its economic performance are building up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C > We will see how many nuclear plants China builds over the next 20 years. The recent information about this is a Bloomberg article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli... ) which states that the boss of Chine General Power corp. announced his plans 200GW for 2035, nothing more. Admitting that it is an official governmental announcement (it doesn't seem so(?)) and given that China already has 50GW, that's maybe 100GW new (way less than 150 standard reactors). Those last years China built between 1 and 5 reactors per year and nuclear produces about 6% of their electricity. Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), and 1200GW planned for 2030. In 2020 China added 71,6GW windturbine power.

by opo 4y ago

natmaka 4y ago

> If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year They selected 2011 as representative and detailed it, however the underlying numerical series cover decades (see the 'Ninja' project https://www.renewables.ninja/ https://www.renewables.ninja/ ) > how much variability ((...) will be in the future with climate change Indeed, there is a non-negligible challenge here. It is also true for nuclear, for example when it comes to cool a reactor down: water ill be more and more scarce, heating it isn't neutral, installing a reactor on seashore exposes it to sea level rise... > capacity factor Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste. >. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity. Yes, and each and every clean energy source type now needs such a backup. No industrialized nation (bar maybe very low-population density coupled with huge natural resources, mainly hydro) can produce all its electricity without either not negligible curtailment or burning fossil fuel in 'backup' powerplants. Even hugely-nuclearized France could never, cannot (and don't even plan to) produce all its electricity thanks to nuclear: around 9% of their electricity is produced by backup 'thermal' plants: gas (methane), oil, coal, see https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... ), either due to load-following or peak consumption. > For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only on solar and wind AFAI no nation targets such an ordeal, they plan to reduce the need for backup units to an acceptable (and always lower) level thanks to production units geographic spread-out, mix (solar, wind...), storage (including V2G) and low-impact curtailment. > If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap), and also as some rather recent advances (network management enabling better integration of intermittent sources, low-loss long-haul powerlines ((U)HVDC...) facilitate such projects. Applying nuclear reactors to real-world problems (in submarines, aircraft carriers and ice breakers) date back the 1950's, and the very same reactor architecture (PWR) wasn't adopted as the main type of electricity-production unit before the 1970's. > (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. > If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power? For the time being, and quite probably for (at best) the next 20 years, there is no such option. Nuclear produces about 2.2% of world's total final consumed energy, with approx running 450 reactors. In order for it to produce about 22% we need to build approx 4500 reactors. This isn't even an option. France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040...

opo 4y ago
>> capacity factor >Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste. Not really. Capacity factor affects everything about a power source - it is stilly to pretend it is not a big deal. If you have to overbuild by a factor of N, that obviously increases the cost, land use, etc by that factor. If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs by those billions of dollars. Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor. >> If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago >No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap), Even when the power sources weren't intermittent, there were still many reasons to try and develop grid storage. Plants offline due to maintenance, differences in demand over a 24 hour period, seasonal differences in demand, etc. Any power plant is obviously a huge capital cost and having to build extra plants is not anyone's preference. The goal for having grid storage is why pumped hydro was developed over 100 years ago. In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage. If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have been using it for a long time. >> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? >It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. You didn't actually answer the question. If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them. France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power. We will see how many nuclear plants China builds over the next 20 years. >France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040... In 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight. Admittedly politics always gets involved in this kind of thing and technology is always changing, so we will see how many they actually build.
- natmaka 4y ago
  > it is stilly to pretend it is not a big deal Let's see what is silly here. I wrote "way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) (and doesn't produce) waste", let's check the details: > overbuild > that obviously increases the cost, land use, etc by that factor. The capacity factor, by itself, means nothing because its impact isn't direct: it is applied to some costs, emissions and land use. The costs of renewables is very low and declining (nuclear is high and raising), therefore the fact that a given production unit isn't always active doesn't cost. See the total cost of the energy produced (integrating capacity/load factors): https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 Same for their emissions, which are calculated by unit of energy produced and therefore also taking into account their capacity/load factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity#Electric_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity#Electric_ge... As for land use the main renewable reserve in nearly all nations are offshore wind which doesn't use land, or hydraulics. Moreover in most nations there are unused/unusable zones, even on buildings/parking lots/arable zones (photovoltaics)/... > If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs Indeed, and that's the reason why the very fact that the total cost of the energy produced by renewable energy sources is low (and declining) is of paramount importance because it offers financial provisions to compensate this. The rest (no risk of major accident (nor risk of any terrorist/military attack triggering it), no dangerous waste, no dependency towards sources of uranium, no daunting decommissions, no hypercentralisation nor heavy bureaucracy necessary...) comes as a bonus. > Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor. Absolutely, my thesis is not that such a strategy isn't always sound, it is that a low capacity/load factor isn't, by itself, a show-stopper. > Even when the power sources weren't intermittent, there were still many reasons to try and develop grid storage Yes, and it lowers the costs of the huge grid beneficial to renewable sources, because a quite large grid is good whatever the type of source (renewable or not). In Europe the case is particularly clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid > In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage. Because fossil fuels are so convenient for storage... and we then neglected carbon emissions. Now that peak oil/gas and climate are threatening, our attitude towards fossil fuel has to change. > If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have been using it for a long time. This is not sound as the objectives (avoiding emitting carbon...) and technical constraints (wind turbine and solar panels now available are much more efficient and industrial than those available even only 25 years ago) were different than ours: fossil fuels were considered vastly superior. They aren't anymore. Same for storage: as the need for it raises, gorillas appear in the room (see batteries https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline , green hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen , V2G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ...) >>> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? >> It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. > You didn't actually answer IMHO I did, bar any other option than nuclear or renewable sources. Can you name one? > If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them. In which wonderland 'wanting to' is equivalent to 'being able to'? > France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power This is not exactly comparable. France built a nuclear fleet in 25 years (1974-1999) See https://web.archive.org/web/20211225120958/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://web.archive.org/web/20211225120958/https://upload.wi... France was then equipped with heavy industry (it isn't anymore ), financially at ease (after the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ) while it now deeply indebted, facing a way smoother challenge (the amount of electricity consumed was then a third of what it now it, moreover there was no 'electrification' (replacing all fossil fuels uses by electricity) real plan) and pushed by a major strategic risk (Arabs/Israel - triggered risk of oil embargo) while climate wasn't really a thing for long (and facts show that it really isn't yet). This nuclear fleet then produced up to 90% of their gridpower. Note: this electricity is 25% of the total amount of final energy consumed in France. As for present times France tries, since 2005, to build a reactor in Finland and it is a major failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant?wprov=srpw1_0#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant?... another one in France and this is another major failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... 2 reactors were built in China (60% overbudget, 5 year late, 1 reactor stopped since mid-2017 after and incident and the other one in low-power mode for the same reason). The more recently launched project, in the U.K. is already drifting away and serious doubts about its economic performance are building up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C > We will see how many nuclear plants China builds over the next 20 years. The recent information about this is a Bloomberg article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli... ) which states that the boss of Chine General Power corp. announced his plans 200GW for 2035, nothing more. Admitting that it is an official governmental announcement (it doesn't seem so(?)) and given that China already has 50GW, that's maybe 100GW new (way less than 150 standard reactors). Those last years China built between 1 and 5 reactors per year and nuclear produces about 6% of their electricity. Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), and 1200GW planned for 2030. In 2020 China added 71,6GW windturbine power.