3 ms·

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 powe

by 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.
  - simiones 4y ago
    Let's compare the largest pumped water storage plant in the world - Nant de Drance in Switzerland [0] - with reactors at one of the largest nuclear plants in the world - Hanul in South Korea [1]. Nant de Drance has 900MW of storage, and took 14 years to build. Each of the last generation reactors in Hanul generate 950+MW of power, and took 5 years to build. The first newer generation reactor is 1340MW, and (assuming it keeps its schedule) has taken 10 years to build. They've done the first tests so they have some chance of connecting to the grid this year, but let's be pessimistic and say that it will take another 4 years - matching the construction time for Nant de Drance. That's still ~50% more power, and it is actually generating it: for Nant de Drance to help, it also needs >900MW of actual renewable power generation plants to be built and operated. [0] https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You mean the most expensive pumped water storage. There is little economy of scale, in pumped hydro. California stores a much larger amount of energy in numerous reservoirs all over the Sierra Nevada range.

by ncmncm 4y ago

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.
- simiones 4y ago
  Let's compare the largest pumped water storage plant in the world - Nant de Drance in Switzerland [0] - with reactors at one of the largest nuclear plants in the world - Hanul in South Korea [1]. Nant de Drance has 900MW of storage, and took 14 years to build. Each of the last generation reactors in Hanul generate 950+MW of power, and took 5 years to build. The first newer generation reactor is 1340MW, and (assuming it keeps its schedule) has taken 10 years to build. They've done the first tests so they have some chance of connecting to the grid this year, but let's be pessimistic and say that it will take another 4 years - matching the construction time for Nant de Drance. That's still ~50% more power, and it is actually generating it: for Nant de Drance to help, it also needs >900MW of actual renewable power generation plants to be built and operated. [0] https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You mean the most expensive pumped water storage. There is little economy of scale, in pumped hydro. California stores a much larger amount of energy in numerous reservoirs all over the Sierra Nevada range.