6 ms·
"Add a few days of storage" This is very non-trivial and will take decades longer than building nuclear power.
by tpmx 4y ago
"Add a few days of storage"
This is very non-trivial and will take decades longer than building nuclear power.
- adrianN 4y agoBuilding enough nuclear power plants to power a country also takes decades and is very non-trivial. The quicker we reach 90% carbon-free, the more carbon budget we have left to figure out the remaining 10%. Renewables are the quickest, cheapest way to do that.
- tpmx 4y agoThe research and tech actually exists for large scale nuclear power. It's essentially a solved problem, unlike large-scale energy storage.
- adrianN 4y agoWe can always create methane or ammonia from hydrogen. That's a solved problem. The only research left to do is to bring down the price.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoYou can do hydrogen, but ammonia production is like 16% efficient?
- adrianN 4y agoEfficiency is less important than cost. Maybe ammonia is so much easier to transport and store that it's worth the efficiency penalty.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoIf I have this right, Ammonia is 2x more expensive than petrol per tonne, and has half the energy density of petrol, so it seems to be 4x more expensive? I am not sure how to compare with hydrogen, as you say costs for it are in storage and transportation
- tpmx 4y agoI.e. the "only" remaining problem is to do it at large scale at a reasonable cost.
- adrianN 4y agoRight now there is little demand for storage because we don't have sufficient renewable generation capacity. It is no surprise that storage technology hasn't been deployed at large scale and is still relatively expensive. But since we know how to build MW scale electrolyzers it's really just a matter of building more of them.
- mqus 4y agoBut if we look at actual nuclear projects in finland and france, they are expensive and mostly failing and take far too long (think decades, not years). End storage of fuel rods is also not a solved problem of nuclear power, esp. in germany. So I would rather take the fast-to-build solar and wind plants and research "large scale" energy storage alongside. Storage also does not have to be large-scale, you can just subsidise a lot of decentralized storage and invest in more flexible energy consumers (aka wash your clothes when the sun is shining).
- fyvhbhn 4y agoLarge scale nuclear power with current tech isn't feasible, because of the lack of good uranium sources
- adrianN 4y agoTo be fair, we could build breeder reactors.
- someguydave 4y agoThis is an insane take, there is plenty of uranium globally. Whoever says otherwise is lying.
- fyvhbhn 4y agoThere may be plenty of uranium. However there isn't plenty available for easy extraction. "Is nuclear energy green" Sabine Hossenfelder
- someguydave 4y agoI respect Sabine but I am skeptical about the paper she puts forth about limited uranium supplies. See the late Prof. MacKay’s work on the subject, considering fast breeder reactors to reuse the fuel and ocean extraction of uranium: https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_164.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_164.shtml
- fyvhbhn 4y agoI am talking about current tech, not Future tech
- someguydave 4y agoBreeder reactors and seawater mining are current tech. Also, this seems like an extreme luddite attitude. Imagine refusing to use a steam engine because nobody has demonstrated infinite coal reserves exist.
- someguydave 4y ago>Building enough nuclear power plants to power a country also takes decades People in Germany said these things 10 years ago too. If Germany had started building nuclear in quantity 10 years ago then they would be coming online now and would get cheaper with each new plant. Instead you will have crippling and deindustrializing power prices for years to come.
- adrianN 4y agoIf we had continued building renewables in quantity ten years ago we would be in much better shape now too. Unfortunately we did neither.
- someguydave 4y agoI don’t believe it is possible to run Germany on only renewables 1) without massive subsidies 2) without huge investments in storage tech (research and production) 3) without building solar/wind in outside places like North Africa Nuclear fission solves all of those problems and is a known ( and safe) technology.
- adrianN 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605106
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hnbad 4y agoThe best time to build storage would have been fifty years ago. The next best time is now. We need power supply now, yes, but we will still need storage decades from now. So building them now is vital. Yet we aren't doing that. That's a problem. We literally have no time left, yet at the current course we'll be in the same situation in 2030 or 2050 as we are today and we'll keep making the same excuses.
- freilanzer 4y ago> will take decades. We already had decades, so where is it?
- SyneRyder 4y agoTesla seems to have done it pretty quickly for South Australia: https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla-giant-battery-australia-reduced-grid-service-cost/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla-giant-battery-australia... Elon promised "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free." And then had the entire thing connected and powering the South Australian power grid in just 63 days: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/10/elon-musk-i-can-fix-south-australia-power-network-in-100-days-or-its-free https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/10/elon-musk... I'm fairly confident that 100 days is less than decades.
- DavidPeiffer 4y agoThat project was 200 MWh. 1 day of Germany electricity consumption is on the order of 1,400,000 MWh, something like 7,000x larger. A "few days" of electricity storage would take orders of magnitude longer to build and deploy, even if we worked on Elon's most optimistic timeline.