4 ms·

100% renewable isn’t enough right now. Batteries cost too much. 70% renewable and 30% nuke isn’t a bad mix though.

ncmncm 4y ago
The overwhelming majority of utility storage will not be in batteries, so battery cost is immaterial. Batteries will be useful for load-smoothing, and short-term storage in smaller grids.
pfdietz 4y ago
In comparison against renewables and storage, new nuclear isn't competing against batteries and storage right now, it's competing against batteries and renewables that could be installed during the operating lifetime of the power plant (earlier in the life more so than later.) So the question is what will renewables and storage will cost in (say) 2030 or later. Batteries have been falling in price by 27%/year recently, and PV by nearly that much, so it's a bold position to assert this will suddenly stop.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Past advancement is not necessarily an indication of future advancement. Battery tech is still exploring ways to improve Li batteries, but capacities have stopped increasing dramatically as far as I know. Even worse, even at the theoretical maximum capacity for these types of chemical batteries, there just aren't enough resources on Earth to build enough to cover the storage requirements of a huge grid. Now, is it possible that a new type of battery will appear and take over the market by 2030? Yes. Will there be enough of them to compete with the stabilizing power of a nuclear power plant? Maybe. Will there be enough nuclear + storage so that the best use of that storage will be to shut down the nuclear plant? Absolutely not. Basically, we need massive amounts of new electrical power (so we can transition transportation to electrical), and we need to shut down all fossil fuel power generation yesterday. Since we can't have enough storage yet for an exclusively green grid, nuclear shouldn't be competing with green energy in this discussion. Our choices are not "all green by 2030 VS green by 2030 + nuclear", they are "green + coal/gas by 2030 vs green + nuclear + less coal/gas". If we're instead talking about 2100, or 2200, then yeah, well probably be able to shut down nuclear as well.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Lithium batteries are adapted for cars, where weight matters. Anything happening with lithium has no relevance to utility power. The best use of a nuclear power plant is not to build it at all. Having not built it, the storage built instead at a tiny fraction of the cost will certainly be more than enough to replace it. Building any nukes means, for each, building several times less new renewable generating capacity than could otherwise be.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Then what storage of some good few hundreds of megawatts would you build for a tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant, that also fits where a nuclear power plant could be built?
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Let's look at simulation/optimization results as to what it would cost to use renewables + storage to produce "synthetic baseload" to compete with nuclear, using real historical weather data. (The "synthetic baseload" comparison is favorable to nuclear, as dealing with variable demand can only help renewables as it already requires storage, and that storage can serve double duty in the variable demand case. Similarly dispatchable demand and transmission between countries also only helps renewables.) https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ It's difficult to get nuclear to compete with wind+solar+batteries+hydrogen in the 2030 cost scenarios. Nuclear does least worse in places like Poland then.
      - viernullvier 4y ago
        Thermal storage, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Space requirements for storage are not dictated by optimal nuke construction site criteria. In particular, no storage method has the potential to render a whole region uninhabitable, and does not need the square-mile exclusion zone. There are many alternatives to batteries, for longer term storage. Tanked anhydrous liquified ammonia may be common, particularly for smaller and more isolated utility districts, in part because tankage can be topped up from imports if it runs low. Underground or sea-floor compressed air are practical, as is buoyancy, in many places. Many more places can use pumped hydro than have an existing dam, or watershed; either up a hill or down to an underground cavity. The method used will be whatever is cheapest in the place and time constructed. Cost for most methods is falling fast. Building a nuke is by far the most expensive baseline alternative, provided it can even be approved and built on a useful schedule.

The overwhelming majority of utility storage will not be in batteries, so battery cost is immaterial. Batteries will be useful for load-smoothing, and short-term storage in smaller grids.

pfdietz 4y ago

In comparison against renewables and storage, new nuclear isn't competing against batteries and storage right now, it's competing against batteries and renewables that could be installed during the operating lifetime of the power plant (earlier in the life more so than later.) So the question is what will renewables and storage will cost in (say) 2030 or later. Batteries have been falling in price by 27%/year recently, and PV by nearly that much, so it's a bold position to assert this will suddenly stop.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Past advancement is not necessarily an indication of future advancement. Battery tech is still exploring ways to improve Li batteries, but capacities have stopped increasing dramatically as far as I know. Even worse, even at the theoretical maximum capacity for these types of chemical batteries, there just aren't enough resources on Earth to build enough to cover the storage requirements of a huge grid. Now, is it possible that a new type of battery will appear and take over the market by 2030? Yes. Will there be enough of them to compete with the stabilizing power of a nuclear power plant? Maybe. Will there be enough nuclear + storage so that the best use of that storage will be to shut down the nuclear plant? Absolutely not. Basically, we need massive amounts of new electrical power (so we can transition transportation to electrical), and we need to shut down all fossil fuel power generation yesterday. Since we can't have enough storage yet for an exclusively green grid, nuclear shouldn't be competing with green energy in this discussion. Our choices are not "all green by 2030 VS green by 2030 + nuclear", they are "green + coal/gas by 2030 vs green + nuclear + less coal/gas". If we're instead talking about 2100, or 2200, then yeah, well probably be able to shut down nuclear as well.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Lithium batteries are adapted for cars, where weight matters. Anything happening with lithium has no relevance to utility power. The best use of a nuclear power plant is not to build it at all. Having not built it, the storage built instead at a tiny fraction of the cost will certainly be more than enough to replace it. Building any nukes means, for each, building several times less new renewable generating capacity than could otherwise be.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Then what storage of some good few hundreds of megawatts would you build for a tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant, that also fits where a nuclear power plant could be built?
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Let's look at simulation/optimization results as to what it would cost to use renewables + storage to produce "synthetic baseload" to compete with nuclear, using real historical weather data. (The "synthetic baseload" comparison is favorable to nuclear, as dealing with variable demand can only help renewables as it already requires storage, and that storage can serve double duty in the variable demand case. Similarly dispatchable demand and transmission between countries also only helps renewables.) https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ It's difficult to get nuclear to compete with wind+solar+batteries+hydrogen in the 2030 cost scenarios. Nuclear does least worse in places like Poland then.
    - viernullvier 4y ago
      Thermal storage, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Space requirements for storage are not dictated by optimal nuke construction site criteria. In particular, no storage method has the potential to render a whole region uninhabitable, and does not need the square-mile exclusion zone. There are many alternatives to batteries, for longer term storage. Tanked anhydrous liquified ammonia may be common, particularly for smaller and more isolated utility districts, in part because tankage can be topped up from imports if it runs low. Underground or sea-floor compressed air are practical, as is buoyancy, in many places. Many more places can use pumped hydro than have an existing dam, or watershed; either up a hill or down to an underground cavity. The method used will be whatever is cheapest in the place and time constructed. Cost for most methods is falling fast. Building a nuke is by far the most expensive baseline alternative, provided it can even be approved and built on a useful schedule.