5 ms·
The research agrees with you. Mind that fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear. > *B. Dealing With Variability and Stability* > Much of the resistance towards
by Gwypaas 4y ago
The research agrees with you. Mind that fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear.
> *B. Dealing With Variability and Stability*
> Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276].
> However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place.
> With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
- arcticbull 4y agoFossil fuel energy isn't cheaper than nuclear, the deaths they cause aren't priced in. Coal kills 25 people per TWh, and the NRC uses an actuarial cost of $9M per death. That means coal should be $0.35/kWh.
- xupybd 4y agoI think one of the problems is we need proof at scale. Yes there are many theoretical ways to store energy for the grid but until we see a reasonable implementation it's a hard argument to sell.
- pfdietz 4y agoYou realize exactly the same argument hits nuclear, right? Current commercial reactors cannot be scaled to power the world, since there isn't enough sufficiently cheap uranium. Breeders or radical new uranium sources are needed, and neither have proof at scale.
- xupybd 4y agoI think we're talking about different scales. Yes we haven't seen world wide nuclear but we have seen large cities worth of power. I think if we had that demonstrated with renewable storage it would look much better on paper.
- pfdietz 4y agoIf nuclear is not going to power the world, then renewables will have to. If nuclear supplies any substantial portion of the world's energy demand the issues I raised will bite. So to allow nuclear to evade those issues for ~1 generation of nuclear plants, renewables would have to supply almost all the world's energy demand. So that means storage will have to be solved (as nuclear would be horribly unsuited to covering outages in a renewable energy system.) Given that renewables and storage will have to be made to work, and are likely to be cheaper, I don't see the point of nuclear in this scenario.
- xupybd 4y agoI don't think 100% nuclear is the solution and long term renewables are a far better option. Mid term nuclear has a place.
- 4y ago