6 ms·

*in the right conditions, ignoring nighttime, winter, northern hemisphere, etc etc...

by rswskg 4y ago

thehappypm 4y ago
Okay, put in batteries, still an order of magnitude cheaper than a nuclear plant without any risk of doomsday
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Not even remotely true. Global battery production is around 300 GWh per year. The US alone uses 12.5 TWh of electricity per day. The world uses ~60TWh. That's 8 years of global battery output to fulfill just one hour of electricity storage.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    There is absolutely no need for batteries to provide for storage, so that is a misleading assertion.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      And what, pray tell, would we be using for storage instead? Surely you're not going to suggest some untested and unproven storage mechanism like hydrogen storage, ammonia, thermal batteries, etc. Those technologies have never been built at anything remotely close to grid-scale, and thus we have no idea what they'd actually cost when we attempt to build them at grid scale. Batteries and hyrodelectric storage are the only energy storage mechanisms for which we have any meaningful cost history.
      - zardo 4y ago
        Are thermal batteries unproven? I thought they were at the "available for purchase from Siemens and GE" stage of development.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        They exist in prototypes, I am not aware of any grid scale energy storage facilities using thermal batteries. Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities? Remember the US uses 8GWh of electricity per minute.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        > Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities? I don't know about that, but for comparison, the "world’s biggest battery storage system" opened last year in California[0] at 400MW / 1,600MWh. [0] https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-complete-at-worlds-biggest-battery-storage-system-in-california/ https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-complete-at-worlds...
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Which is a lithium ion battery facility. Not a thermal batter facility.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        Yes, I realise that. That's why I said "I don't know" and "for comparison". My point was that GWh-scale thermal battery proposals would be competing with already existing (and possibly cheaper) chemical batteries, and that energy storage on this scale is not unheard of.
        _Tev 4y ago
        The point is that current energy storage facilities are too small for fully renewable grid (or arguably even 60% renewable grid). Even as a nuclear supporter I would welcome more renewables if we had cheap scalable storage, which no one has it seems. (at least no one pointed out such project in the entire thread)
        Manuel_D 4y ago
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        > what ... would we be using for storage instead? You are already well aware of numerous alternatives. Insisting they are "untested" is not fooling anybody.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Yes I'm well aware of the numerous alternatives you repeatedly insist are incredibly cheap and scalable, despite the fact that no such systems have been deployed.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    Why are you comparing cost with industrial output?
  - schiffern 4y ago
    > Global battery production is... Now repeat the same math for global production of new nuclear power plants, in GW/year. While writing your reply about how this isn't the right way to think about the future of nuclear power, realize that those exact same arguments apply to batteries, too.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      No, the same arguments do not apply. Lithium ion battery production is essentially a chemical industry. It cannot become cheaper than its input materials. Most of the cobalt produced goes to lithium ion batteries [1]. Eventually, the battery industry hits the ceiling of what extraction industries can supply and shortages are already on the horizon [2]. Nuclear power plants are mostly steel, concrete, and copper. They need to be manufactured to precise tolerances, but the cost of a nuclear plant isn't driven by the cost of concrete and steel as rae inputs. The nuclear industry accounts for a negligible share of steel, copper, and concrete consumption. The lion's share of the cost is in the design, approval, and construction of the plants. Unlike batteries, these are factors that benefit from building the same repeated design. A serial run of 40 heat exchangers is a lot cheaper than a one-off production of 3 or 4 heat exchangers. This is why nuclear plants were so much cheaper in the 1970s and 80s when the same designs were built repeatedly. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143399/global-cobalt-consumption-distribution-by-application/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143399/global-cobalt-co... 2. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev-materials-lithium-cobalt-2021-07-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev...
      - jillesvangurp 4y ago
        Lithium ion is just one type of battery. There are many including quite a few that don't involve exotic materials. For grid storage, energy density is a lot less important. Even so, we're on track to produce li on batteries for cars by the twh per year. And most of those will have a second life in grid storage. That's before considering the effects of vehicle to grid storage. There are no plans for nuclear anywhere close to the same scale. Changing that will require a debate about cost. This article does a great job of avoiding that topic entirely.
mperham 4y ago
That's why you mix in wind too.
- woeirua 4y ago
  And there are still days (like during Texas' winter power fiasco) where neither the sun, nor the wind are strong enough to generate sufficient power from renewables alone. How people still believe that you can get by without any baseload power generation capacity is beyond me.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    How do we get by without "base load power" today? Answer: We import fuel. We will have no reason to give up the ability to import fuel at need. We might even stockpile some.

*in the right conditions, ignoring nighttime, winter, northern hemisphere, etc etc...

by rswskg 4y ago

*in the right conditions, ignoring nighttime, winter, northern hemisphere, etc etc...

thehappypm 4y ago

Okay, put in batteries, still an order of magnitude cheaper than a nuclear plant without any risk of doomsday

Manuel_D 4y ago
Not even remotely true. Global battery production is around 300 GWh per year. The US alone uses 12.5 TWh of electricity per day. The world uses ~60TWh. That's 8 years of global battery output to fulfill just one hour of electricity storage.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There is absolutely no need for batteries to provide for storage, so that is a misleading assertion.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    And what, pray tell, would we be using for storage instead? Surely you're not going to suggest some untested and unproven storage mechanism like hydrogen storage, ammonia, thermal batteries, etc. Those technologies have never been built at anything remotely close to grid-scale, and thus we have no idea what they'd actually cost when we attempt to build them at grid scale. Batteries and hyrodelectric storage are the only energy storage mechanisms for which we have any meaningful cost history.
    - zardo 4y ago
      Are thermal batteries unproven? I thought they were at the "available for purchase from Siemens and GE" stage of development.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        They exist in prototypes, I am not aware of any grid scale energy storage facilities using thermal batteries. Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities? Remember the US uses 8GWh of electricity per minute.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        > Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities? I don't know about that, but for comparison, the "world’s biggest battery storage system" opened last year in California[0] at 400MW / 1,600MWh. [0] https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-complete-at-worlds-biggest-battery-storage-system-in-california/ https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-complete-at-worlds...
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Which is a lithium ion battery facility. Not a thermal batter facility.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        Yes, I realise that. That's why I said "I don't know" and "for comparison". My point was that GWh-scale thermal battery proposals would be competing with already existing (and possibly cheaper) chemical batteries, and that energy storage on this scale is not unheard of.
        _Tev 4y ago
        The point is that current energy storage facilities are too small for fully renewable grid (or arguably even 60% renewable grid). Even as a nuclear supporter I would welcome more renewables if we had cheap scalable storage, which no one has it seems. (at least no one pointed out such project in the entire thread)
        Manuel_D 4y ago
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      > what ... would we be using for storage instead? You are already well aware of numerous alternatives. Insisting they are "untested" is not fooling anybody.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Yes I'm well aware of the numerous alternatives you repeatedly insist are incredibly cheap and scalable, despite the fact that no such systems have been deployed.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Why are you comparing cost with industrial output?
- schiffern 4y ago
  > Global battery production is... Now repeat the same math for global production of new nuclear power plants, in GW/year. While writing your reply about how this isn't the right way to think about the future of nuclear power, realize that those exact same arguments apply to batteries, too.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    No, the same arguments do not apply. Lithium ion battery production is essentially a chemical industry. It cannot become cheaper than its input materials. Most of the cobalt produced goes to lithium ion batteries [1]. Eventually, the battery industry hits the ceiling of what extraction industries can supply and shortages are already on the horizon [2]. Nuclear power plants are mostly steel, concrete, and copper. They need to be manufactured to precise tolerances, but the cost of a nuclear plant isn't driven by the cost of concrete and steel as rae inputs. The nuclear industry accounts for a negligible share of steel, copper, and concrete consumption. The lion's share of the cost is in the design, approval, and construction of the plants. Unlike batteries, these are factors that benefit from building the same repeated design. A serial run of 40 heat exchangers is a lot cheaper than a one-off production of 3 or 4 heat exchangers. This is why nuclear plants were so much cheaper in the 1970s and 80s when the same designs were built repeatedly. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143399/global-cobalt-consumption-distribution-by-application/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143399/global-cobalt-co... 2. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev-materials-lithium-cobalt-2021-07-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev...
    - jillesvangurp 4y ago
      Lithium ion is just one type of battery. There are many including quite a few that don't involve exotic materials. For grid storage, energy density is a lot less important. Even so, we're on track to produce li on batteries for cars by the twh per year. And most of those will have a second life in grid storage. That's before considering the effects of vehicle to grid storage. There are no plans for nuclear anywhere close to the same scale. Changing that will require a debate about cost. This article does a great job of avoiding that topic entirely.

mperham 4y ago

That's why you mix in wind too.

woeirua 4y ago
And there are still days (like during Texas' winter power fiasco) where neither the sun, nor the wind are strong enough to generate sufficient power from renewables alone. How people still believe that you can get by without any baseload power generation capacity is beyond me.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  How do we get by without "base load power" today? Answer: We import fuel. We will have no reason to give up the ability to import fuel at need. We might even stockpile some.