4 ms·

> Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours o

by evilos 4y ago

> Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. > That's a very nice double standard where the technology that actually exists and has a tens of GWh/yr supply chain already 90% built has to have already solved the problem to be feasible, but vague hand waving at reactor designs and fuel cycles that don't even exist as a prototype get a pass. You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. > Then why did he repeatedly say thing like sodium ion has yet to show industrial scale feasibility mere weeks after CATL announced that they were building out an industrial scale pipeline having already finished proving feasibility? Why not include Zinc Bromide that was developed in the university whose logo he put on the report? You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. Once you have your ammonia, hydrogen, and ethylene supply chains mature, then you can just burn some of those in the handful of areas where a dunkelflaute can't be managed with 12hr storage and dispatchable loads. > You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. Putting U235 in a burner ractor just lengthens the time before your burner can come online. There is not enough viable uranium for a single fuel load to provide primary energy in existing designs. Your serial production of Gen III+ reactors cannot put a dent in world emissions before it needs to change course to breeders and all your new built reactors are mothballed for 20 years while fuel supplies are bred. > You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means. Your statement about what was in the paper was a lie as evidenced by the statements made in the paper referring to industrial feasibility. Those statements were a lie as evidenced by industrial feasibility being already proven. Why does your reasoning about the transition from an imaginary PWR supply chain to an imaginary Gen IV supply chain not apply to transition from a real TWh/yr battery supply chain transitioning into a real drop in replacement already mostly built that uses the same equipment?
- evilos 4y ago
  > Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, Sorry it is late here. > but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. That's your example? That paper is about electricity demand and they don't even manage to meet that. We're talking about global primary energy here. Surely you can do better.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You see, the thing about energy that needs to be available in chemical form is that it can be stored in chemical form. And the bizarre thing about low grade heat is it can be stored as low or high grade heat. And the absolutly wild thing about energy that needs to be stored in a vehicle for an average of a week is it's stored in a vehicle for an average of a week. Weird twist, huh? The next thing that would shock you if you were arguing in good faith and not just trying to spread FUD to delay the death of coal is that provisioning 5x electricity to meet those dispatchable loads reduces the storage required for the electricity even further. If renewables can meet 95% of the goal with just the previously industrially deployed technogy stack and have proven but not deployed technology for the remaining 5%; then it makes no sense to stop deploying them and instead switch to a technogy that can meet 40% at much higher cost and has no answer even in the demonstration stage to the remaining 60%. Just because the 5% is contained in the 40% doesn't make it a sane strategy. Especially when in most of the world that 5% already has preexisting hydro that can serve it with a simple turbine upgrade.

by evilos 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. Once you have your ammonia, hydrogen, and ethylene supply chains mature, then you can just burn some of those in the handful of areas where a dunkelflaute can't be managed with 12hr storage and dispatchable loads. > You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. Putting U235 in a burner ractor just lengthens the time before your burner can come online. There is not enough viable uranium for a single fuel load to provide primary energy in existing designs. Your serial production of Gen III+ reactors cannot put a dent in world emissions before it needs to change course to breeders and all your new built reactors are mothballed for 20 years while fuel supplies are bred. > You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means. Your statement about what was in the paper was a lie as evidenced by the statements made in the paper referring to industrial feasibility. Those statements were a lie as evidenced by industrial feasibility being already proven. Why does your reasoning about the transition from an imaginary PWR supply chain to an imaginary Gen IV supply chain not apply to transition from a real TWh/yr battery supply chain transitioning into a real drop in replacement already mostly built that uses the same equipment?

evilos 4y ago
> Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, Sorry it is late here. > but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. That's your example? That paper is about electricity demand and they don't even manage to meet that. We're talking about global primary energy here. Surely you can do better.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You see, the thing about energy that needs to be available in chemical form is that it can be stored in chemical form. And the bizarre thing about low grade heat is it can be stored as low or high grade heat. And the absolutly wild thing about energy that needs to be stored in a vehicle for an average of a week is it's stored in a vehicle for an average of a week. Weird twist, huh? The next thing that would shock you if you were arguing in good faith and not just trying to spread FUD to delay the death of coal is that provisioning 5x electricity to meet those dispatchable loads reduces the storage required for the electricity even further. If renewables can meet 95% of the goal with just the previously industrially deployed technogy stack and have proven but not deployed technology for the remaining 5%; then it makes no sense to stop deploying them and instead switch to a technogy that can meet 40% at much higher cost and has no answer even in the demonstration stage to the remaining 60%. Just because the 5% is contained in the 40% doesn't make it a sane strategy. Especially when in most of the world that 5% already has preexisting hydro that can serve it with a simple turbine upgrade.