6 ms·

You can't get around the fact that you need baseload and/or storage. Both are hard problems. Some locations have regional baseload solutions like hydroelectric

You can't get around the fact that you need baseload and/or storage. Both are hard problems. Some locations have regional baseload solutions like hydroelectricity, but many don't. Nuclear is a solution that works anywhere, but like you say, it's expensive. Storage is similar: there are some regional solutions (pumped hydro), or a difficult and expensive general solution (chemical batteries). There's no single answer that works everywhere. All options, including nuclear, need to be on the table and considered as part of the whole-system energy solution.

jeffbee 4y ago
Renewables with batteries are cheaper than new nuclear or even new natural gas.
- sesuximo 4y ago
  I’d like to read about this - can you point me towards some reputable articles
  - ackfoobar 4y ago
    Not an article, but I find the summary from Sabine Hossenfelder neutral and trustworthy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      That's a great video, and I think it's important to point out to the other jackass in this thread that the issue is relevant to Germany because most of that country is north of fucking Saskatoon while this article is about Georgia which is at the same latitude as Iraq.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      That video is missing demand response enabling sector coupling. Take green steel using hydrogen as a chemical feedstock. Oversize the electrolyzers and add some storage and the plant is now able to utilize low prices and leave the firm 10% to more important consumers, while enabling more producers to exist. This without paying the round-trip cost. Almost all studies looking into 100% renewable systems finds them easily possible globally but a holistic approach is required. Simply shifting the current electricity sector to renewables won't cut it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
- slenk 4y ago
  Batteries in their current form are incredibly harmful to the environment, and I think would need to be replaced more than nuclear fuel sources.
  - Elyra 4y ago
    Exactly, and the reason why they're cheaper now is because it's easier to dump their externalities on developing countries with lax environmental policy, whereas nuclear has unreasonably strict safety requirements which drive up costs substantially, along with the lost expertise in the work force by pausing it for so long.
    - throwuwu 4y ago
      TANSTAAFL
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Batteries, if recycled, have less environmental impact than the massive amounts of concrete used in a nuclear facility.
    - DrThunder 4y ago
      Absolutely not. You might want to look up where that cobalt for batteries comes from as well and how much recycling actually gets done.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        LiFePO4 batteries need no cobalt. You do not need fancy batteries for stationary services. Grid-scale storage batteries can be as big, heavy, dumb, and cheap as you like. You don't even need lithium really.
        DrThunder 4y ago
        Cool. Would you like to let us know where all the other materials are mined from and how environmentally friendly that is? I suggest you look up nickel mining.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Does that price include enough storage to heat the entire Twin Cities area (~4M people) for six continuous weeks of average -20C weather with overcast skies, where power failure means widespread death and property damage (broken pipes)? It might do, I don't know, but I'm skeptical. That's a lot of power! My gut feeling is a baseload solution is better for that kind of situation, though what I'm really advocating for is for every option to be on the table for the real experts (not me!) to decide.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Pump water uphill on sunny & windy days. One thing that MN doesn't lack is water.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      During the long winter season, that water is largely in solid form, making it less useful for hydro-battery use.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        Hydro plants in cold regions usually have an "ice laying" period where they reduce the output to form a thick layer of ice at their desired level to enable the flow they need and prevent ice-slush from entering the turbines. Seems like Minnesota is more lakes, but that same concept should apply, and it is not like they freeze to the bottom each winter.
        shagie 4y ago
        You've also got a sizable river on the eastern border that extends up into northern Minnesota. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reacto...
    - throwuwu 4y ago
- ilyt 4y ago
  Right, does it survive week with bad weather and max load ? Coz that's called "a winter"
jfengel 4y ago
Gas peaker plants solve the problem, with no additional costs. We don't have to get carbon production to zero. If we run the gas plants even as much as 10% of the time for no-sun-no-wind-flat-batteries conditions, you've still cut 90% of carbon emissions. At that point it would be much cheaper to look elsewhere for more improvements. There's no need to invent a reason for massive new energy infrastructure. The gas plants already exist; no exotic solutions are required to give 100% continuous power supply.
- belorn 4y ago
  Europe can not continue to rely on natural gas and fossil fuels for the next 20-30 years, nor will the climate goals be reached if power consumption and thus gas consumption are increased. Gas peaker plants are also not cheap. People think they are cheap when looking at the theoretical cost, but having energy plants in stand-by mode costs a lot of money. Generally those are paid by either taxes or as part of the grid connection cost because governments will pay a lot of money to have grid stability. In theory we could remove those subsidizes and let the market pay to have grid stability, but no governments in Europe do this. Europe also do not have any easy access to natural gas. The only country would be Norway. Being energy self-sufficient is important from a geopolitical perspective and I doubt anyone is unaware about the strong connection between current wars and fossil fuels. Nuclear fuel can be both mined and constructed in EU, the fuel is much less sensitive to geopolitical events, and the diversity in the nuclear fuel production chain is fairly good. Countries can much easier store up decades worth of fuel.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    So you propose having nuclear plants in standby? Then I have a bridge to sell you.
    - belorn 4y ago
      Of course not, but is that question even asked in good faith? Are you not aware that the European grid is made out of multiple different technologies each with a different benefits and drawbacks? Right now the most important aspect of the grid is not price, it is the reduction of fossil fuel dependency. It is not sustainable to use fossil fuels in the short run and it is definitively not sustainable in the long run. Countries need to invest and start building replacement for existing fossil fuel power plants, and they also need at the same time increase capacity. On top of that we also need to start replace and remove part of the hydro energy production in order to prevent several extinctions. It is also not morally or economically sensible to continue spend subsidizes on fossil fuel plants. A minimum requirement for government subsidizes should be zero green house emissions and geopolitical self-sufficient within the borders of EU.
scythe 4y ago
I've been pleasantly surprised by the impressive recent results that multiple groups have gotten with potassium-based dual-ion batteries. The dual-ion battery stores both positive (in the anode) and negative (in the cathode) ions, which means that both electrodes can be made of carbon rather than metals. Storing negative ions in the cathode also eliminates the major hurdle with sodium-ion: the large Na+ ion doesn't like to be yanked out of the metal-oxide cathode's crystal lattice. I'm not sure why the best stability results I've seen have been with potassium, but anyway: 1500 cycles, 95% capacity retention: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ee/c7ee01535f/unauth https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ee/c7ee0... 2000 cycles, "100%" capacity retention (degradation below measurement limits): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adfm.202001440 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adfm.202001... It's rare that I see a battery that meets the triple criterion of high stability (>>1000 cycles), cheap materials and high current efficiency (which in a large installation is also related to heat dissipation), but these seem to do it. The density is too low for vehicles, but fine for grids.

jeffbee 4y ago

Renewables with batteries are cheaper than new nuclear or even new natural gas.

sesuximo 4y ago
I’d like to read about this - can you point me towards some reputable articles
- ackfoobar 4y ago
  Not an article, but I find the summary from Sabine Hossenfelder neutral and trustworthy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    That's a great video, and I think it's important to point out to the other jackass in this thread that the issue is relevant to Germany because most of that country is north of fucking Saskatoon while this article is about Georgia which is at the same latitude as Iraq.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    That video is missing demand response enabling sector coupling. Take green steel using hydrogen as a chemical feedstock. Oversize the electrolyzers and add some storage and the plant is now able to utilize low prices and leave the firm 10% to more important consumers, while enabling more producers to exist. This without paying the round-trip cost. Almost all studies looking into 100% renewable systems finds them easily possible globally but a holistic approach is required. Simply shifting the current electricity sector to renewables won't cut it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
slenk 4y ago
Batteries in their current form are incredibly harmful to the environment, and I think would need to be replaced more than nuclear fuel sources.
- Elyra 4y ago
  Exactly, and the reason why they're cheaper now is because it's easier to dump their externalities on developing countries with lax environmental policy, whereas nuclear has unreasonably strict safety requirements which drive up costs substantially, along with the lost expertise in the work force by pausing it for so long.
  - throwuwu 4y ago
    TANSTAAFL
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Batteries, if recycled, have less environmental impact than the massive amounts of concrete used in a nuclear facility.
  - DrThunder 4y ago
    Absolutely not. You might want to look up where that cobalt for batteries comes from as well and how much recycling actually gets done.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      LiFePO4 batteries need no cobalt. You do not need fancy batteries for stationary services. Grid-scale storage batteries can be as big, heavy, dumb, and cheap as you like. You don't even need lithium really.
      - DrThunder 4y ago
        Cool. Would you like to let us know where all the other materials are mined from and how environmentally friendly that is? I suggest you look up nickel mining.
coldpie 4y ago
Does that price include enough storage to heat the entire Twin Cities area (~4M people) for six continuous weeks of average -20C weather with overcast skies, where power failure means widespread death and property damage (broken pipes)? It might do, I don't know, but I'm skeptical. That's a lot of power! My gut feeling is a baseload solution is better for that kind of situation, though what I'm really advocating for is for every option to be on the table for the real experts (not me!) to decide.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Pump water uphill on sunny & windy days. One thing that MN doesn't lack is water.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    During the long winter season, that water is largely in solid form, making it less useful for hydro-battery use.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Hydro plants in cold regions usually have an "ice laying" period where they reduce the output to form a thick layer of ice at their desired level to enable the flow they need and prevent ice-slush from entering the turbines. Seems like Minnesota is more lakes, but that same concept should apply, and it is not like they freeze to the bottom each winter.
      - shagie 4y ago
        You've also got a sizable river on the eastern border that extends up into northern Minnesota. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reacto...
  - throwuwu 4y ago
ilyt 4y ago
Right, does it survive week with bad weather and max load ? Coz that's called "a winter"

jfengel 4y ago

Gas peaker plants solve the problem, with no additional costs. We don't have to get carbon production to zero. If we run the gas plants even as much as 10% of the time for no-sun-no-wind-flat-batteries conditions, you've still cut 90% of carbon emissions. At that point it would be much cheaper to look elsewhere for more improvements. There's no need to invent a reason for massive new energy infrastructure. The gas plants already exist; no exotic solutions are required to give 100% continuous power supply.

belorn 4y ago
Europe can not continue to rely on natural gas and fossil fuels for the next 20-30 years, nor will the climate goals be reached if power consumption and thus gas consumption are increased. Gas peaker plants are also not cheap. People think they are cheap when looking at the theoretical cost, but having energy plants in stand-by mode costs a lot of money. Generally those are paid by either taxes or as part of the grid connection cost because governments will pay a lot of money to have grid stability. In theory we could remove those subsidizes and let the market pay to have grid stability, but no governments in Europe do this. Europe also do not have any easy access to natural gas. The only country would be Norway. Being energy self-sufficient is important from a geopolitical perspective and I doubt anyone is unaware about the strong connection between current wars and fossil fuels. Nuclear fuel can be both mined and constructed in EU, the fuel is much less sensitive to geopolitical events, and the diversity in the nuclear fuel production chain is fairly good. Countries can much easier store up decades worth of fuel.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  So you propose having nuclear plants in standby? Then I have a bridge to sell you.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Of course not, but is that question even asked in good faith? Are you not aware that the European grid is made out of multiple different technologies each with a different benefits and drawbacks? Right now the most important aspect of the grid is not price, it is the reduction of fossil fuel dependency. It is not sustainable to use fossil fuels in the short run and it is definitively not sustainable in the long run. Countries need to invest and start building replacement for existing fossil fuel power plants, and they also need at the same time increase capacity. On top of that we also need to start replace and remove part of the hydro energy production in order to prevent several extinctions. It is also not morally or economically sensible to continue spend subsidizes on fossil fuel plants. A minimum requirement for government subsidizes should be zero green house emissions and geopolitical self-sufficient within the borders of EU.

scythe 4y ago

I've been pleasantly surprised by the impressive recent results that multiple groups have gotten with potassium-based dual-ion batteries. The dual-ion battery stores both positive (in the anode) and negative (in the cathode) ions, which means that both electrodes can be made of carbon rather than metals. Storing negative ions in the cathode also eliminates the major hurdle with sodium-ion: the large Na+ ion doesn't like to be yanked out of the metal-oxide cathode's crystal lattice. I'm not sure why the best stability results I've seen have been with potassium, but anyway: 1500 cycles, 95% capacity retention: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ee/c7ee01535f/unauth https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ee/c7ee0... 2000 cycles, "100%" capacity retention (degradation below measurement limits): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adfm.202001440 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adfm.202001... It's rare that I see a battery that meets the triple criterion of high stability (>>1000 cycles), cheap materials and high current efficiency (which in a large installation is also related to heat dissipation), but these seem to do it. The density is too low for vehicles, but fine for grids.