4 ms·

Is it still a 1/5th of the cost if you have to factor in storage?

by scrlk 4y ago

Gwypaas 4y ago
No need to factor in storage when creating synthetic fuels like the GP suggests.
- loeg 4y ago
  You would instead need to factor in the inefficiencies of creating and burning those fuels.
pydry 4y ago
If you synthesize windgas and burn that for electricity (which is probably the most expensive, inefficient way to store and use that energy) it's still about 4/5ths the cost of nuclear power. If you combined pumped storage and batteries with solar and wind it's roughly between 2/5ths and 3/5ths. This ignores taxpayer shouldered insurance for nuclear power. If you price that accurately the cost of nuclear power balloons still further. It's never been particularly cost effective but compared to dirt cheap renewables it's a veritable financial black hole. This is why EDF is currently imploding. It's why only countries that have nukes or really want the option to have nukes build civilian nuclear power plants.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  windgas? That's not a word I've ever heard or sound like a well established source of energy.
  - pydry 4y ago
    coz it doesnt make economic sense to do it until A) wind and solar energy is routinely producing a lot more energy than can be currently used and stored cheaply B) pumping natural gas becomes prohibited or prohibitively expensive.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Yes. Battery backed solar and wind is still cheaper than nuclear, and mostly cheaper than coal and natural gas in many markets. For seasonality, you can use buried HVDC transmission (which is fairly efficient at moving large amounts of energy vast distances). China moves more power further with HVDC than the US would have to. Burying it gets around NIMBYs and other land issues that slow this infra down. Commercial nuclear is just ridiculously expensive for the capacity factor and energy produced. It’s not entirely without use, but best suited for where there are no other options (the Arctic, Antarctica, etc). It’s likely cheaper to burn natural gas for the last ~5% of generation needed when the grid is mostly zero carbon in a decade (based on renewables and battery storage ramp rates) and then suck that CO2 into the ground with excess renewables (that otherwise would’ve been curtailed) versus continuing to try to build nuclear (although I haven’t done the math). https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-inquiry-told-firmed-renewables-cheapest-and-best-option-for-future-58109/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-inquiry-told-firmed-rene... https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-o... https://spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-state-grid-corp-crushes-power-transmission-records https://spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-state-grid-corp-crushes-pow... https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transmission-lines/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transm...
ianburrell 4y ago
We are approaching the prices where storage is almost as cheap as nuclear power. More importantly, we don't need to worry about storage now. Gas peaker plants will work until we get rid of all the other fossil fuel power plants. Then, storage should be cheaper since will know how to scale it. There is difference between short-term and long-term storage. Finally, one solution to storage problem is build more supply. Three times will cover nearly every situation, and we will need extra power for doing hydrogen, carbon removal, and fuel generation. It is possible we won't need long-term storage and can use hydrogen or fuel.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Okay but what’s the amortized cost of building triple the supply? The chart you linked to only talks about marginal cost.
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    I don’t think amortized cost matters. The research and development has been done or is included in the unit cost. Renewables have better unit economics than nuclear since fixed costs are spread over many, many more units. It sounds like better reactors need lots of research. More important is time, it takes ten years to build reactor while can order solar panels now. Probably can build a new solar panel plant and multiple solar installations in decade. There does need to be economic incentive to over build. Someone, probably the government, will need to pay for carbon capture. May need to encourage hard-to-electrify industries to switch. But we have a while until that happens.

Is it still a 1/5th of the cost if you have to factor in storage?

by scrlk 4y ago

Is it still a 1/5th of the cost if you have to factor in storage?

Gwypaas 4y ago

No need to factor in storage when creating synthetic fuels like the GP suggests.

loeg 4y ago
You would instead need to factor in the inefficiencies of creating and burning those fuels.

pydry 4y ago

If you synthesize windgas and burn that for electricity (which is probably the most expensive, inefficient way to store and use that energy) it's still about 4/5ths the cost of nuclear power. If you combined pumped storage and batteries with solar and wind it's roughly between 2/5ths and 3/5ths. This ignores taxpayer shouldered insurance for nuclear power. If you price that accurately the cost of nuclear power balloons still further. It's never been particularly cost effective but compared to dirt cheap renewables it's a veritable financial black hole. This is why EDF is currently imploding. It's why only countries that have nukes or really want the option to have nukes build civilian nuclear power plants.

akvadrako 4y ago
windgas? That's not a word I've ever heard or sound like a well established source of energy.
- pydry 4y ago
  coz it doesnt make economic sense to do it until A) wind and solar energy is routinely producing a lot more energy than can be currently used and stored cheaply B) pumping natural gas becomes prohibited or prohibitively expensive.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Yes. Battery backed solar and wind is still cheaper than nuclear, and mostly cheaper than coal and natural gas in many markets. For seasonality, you can use buried HVDC transmission (which is fairly efficient at moving large amounts of energy vast distances). China moves more power further with HVDC than the US would have to. Burying it gets around NIMBYs and other land issues that slow this infra down. Commercial nuclear is just ridiculously expensive for the capacity factor and energy produced. It’s not entirely without use, but best suited for where there are no other options (the Arctic, Antarctica, etc). It’s likely cheaper to burn natural gas for the last ~5% of generation needed when the grid is mostly zero carbon in a decade (based on renewables and battery storage ramp rates) and then suck that CO2 into the ground with excess renewables (that otherwise would’ve been curtailed) versus continuing to try to build nuclear (although I haven’t done the math). https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-inquiry-told-firmed-renewables-cheapest-and-best-option-for-future-58109/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-inquiry-told-firmed-rene... https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-o... https://spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-state-grid-corp-crushes-power-transmission-records https://spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-state-grid-corp-crushes-pow... https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transmission-lines/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transm...

ianburrell 4y ago

We are approaching the prices where storage is almost as cheap as nuclear power. More importantly, we don't need to worry about storage now. Gas peaker plants will work until we get rid of all the other fossil fuel power plants. Then, storage should be cheaper since will know how to scale it. There is difference between short-term and long-term storage. Finally, one solution to storage problem is build more supply. Three times will cover nearly every situation, and we will need extra power for doing hydrogen, carbon removal, and fuel generation. It is possible we won't need long-term storage and can use hydrogen or fuel.

rayiner 4y ago
Okay but what’s the amortized cost of building triple the supply? The chart you linked to only talks about marginal cost.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  I don’t think amortized cost matters. The research and development has been done or is included in the unit cost. Renewables have better unit economics than nuclear since fixed costs are spread over many, many more units. It sounds like better reactors need lots of research. More important is time, it takes ten years to build reactor while can order solar panels now. Probably can build a new solar panel plant and multiple solar installations in decade. There does need to be economic incentive to over build. Someone, probably the government, will need to pay for carbon capture. May need to encourage hard-to-electrify industries to switch. But we have a while until that happens.