5 ms·

Over the years I have changed my perspective on nuclear power. I still think it is useful, yet, I do understand it brings to the table some potentially serious

Over the years I have changed my perspective on nuclear power. I still think it is useful, yet, I do understand it brings to the table some potentially serious black swan events. In trying to understand energy transition I have come to the conclusion that neither grid-scale solar nor nuclear are the answer. Wind, however, seems to be. It isn't hard for people to understand why wind is likely a better idea than nuclear. I won't waste any time exploring that comparison. Wind, I have learned, seems to be massively better than solar across many vectors. BTW, I am not talking about offshore wind. Not sure that compares well at all. Energy production per installed GW: Wind: 3.07 TWh/GW Solar: 1.33 TWh/GW (solar is reliably off half the time) Land use per GW: Wind: 750 acres/GW Solar: 3,900 acres/GW Land use to provide all Tesla Master Plan solar + wind: Wind: 1 Hawaii (area of all islands) Solar: 12 Hawaii's or, Wind: 2.5% of California Solar: 30% of California Annual Operations and Maintenance costs : Wind: 1.00 Solar: 1.33 times wind O&M Initial investment in factories: Wind: $212 billion Solar: $ 11 billion Storage required for 95% reliability: Wind: 3 hours Solar: >12 hours Wind requires 4x less batteries, with all the cost, recycling and ecological advantages this delivers. Build supply chain origin: Wind: Diverse Solar: Heavy reliance on China Long term supply chain (maintenance, parts, etc.) origin: Wind: Diverse Solar: Heavy reliance on China (forever) Frankly, I used to think we really needed a large number (200+) of new nuclear power plants to be able to make a full transition to electric ground, sea and air transport as well as 100% electrification of homes and various industrial processes. From my current perspective I think it might be far more intelligent to focus on using wind for grid-scale, no grid-scale solar and residential/commercial solar + storage for local load mitigation. This is where I disagree with Tesla's Master Plan 3. I don't think that grid-scale solar is a good idea at all.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Now compare wind and solar and existing hydro and 2-5% w2e to just wind instead of just wind vs. just solar. At a mix appropriate for the region (for example some regions get 800kWh/kWp/yr, others get 2400, wind ranges between 2000 and 5000), and include reasonable predictons of demand curves. Wind and solar are negatively correlated. Adding both reduces storage and makes the system more robust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_relationship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_relationship
- robomartin 4y ago
  > At a mix appropriate for the region We don't need to think regionally. We can move power thousands of miles. Yes, of course, it's easier over the ocean, however, we have the means to do so over land as well. For reference, a project from UK is moving power from approximately 4000 km away (Morocco). In other words, if wind --as I believe is the case-- has significant advantages over solar, we can locate wind wherever it makes sense and then move the power as far and wide as needed. We could spider out to various storage facilities and distribute to towns and cities. The point is, power is easy to move. We already do it. > Now compare wind and solar and existing hydro and 2-5% w2e to just wind instead of just wind vs. just solar I don't understand why you are asking for this comparison. My point is that grid-scale solar is a bad idea, by itself or mixed with something else, including wind. I gave most of the reasons in support of this conclusion in the comment you responded to. With solar we are starting with a technology that does not produce any power half the time, every day, forever. Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 (MPP3) figure 12 shows a close-up chart of a few days in July in the US. I reproduce it here for convenience: https://i.imgur.com/HTxWL6o.png https://i.imgur.com/HTxWL6o.png The variability of solar over time is massive. Not so for wind. particularly if located optimally and geographically distributed. In the US you cannot do any better with solar than that picture. Clouds, rain, snow and dirt will turn this: https://i.imgur.com/aNnbmDp.png https://i.imgur.com/aNnbmDp.png Into this nightmare: https://i.imgur.com/breTHQd.png https://i.imgur.com/breTHQd.png And so, reliability, capacity factor, availability, or whatever measure or term one might care to use for solar is always significantly inferior to that of wind. There's data on this. My question is rooted in optimization at many levels (list is not exaustive): - Energy production per installed GW - Land utilization - Ecological impact - Operation and maintenance costs - Storage requirements - Strategic supply chain factors - Scale of future waste/recycling problem Looking back at MPP3, table 6, we can ask a fundamental question: How much installed grid-sale capacity do we have to build? No new nuclear or hydro. The table, is reduced to onshore and offshore wind and solar. The total for those technologies is 5,087 GW. That's what we have to build. That's the challenge. My question is simple: We have to build 5,087 GW generation capacity. Given the optimization criteria list presented above. What combination of solar and wind would be optimal? Looking at the numbers, I cannot find justification for building almost any grid-scale solar. Let me give you a simple example of this... Solar requires at least four times more storage than wind to reach the same or similar reliability. I'll assume batteries. Well, that means at least four times more mining, processing, factories, CO2 emissions, damage to the ecosystem, transportation, installation and maintenance costs, mean time between failure, waste, recycling costs and effects, etc. And that's just one of my comparison vectors. Isn't that enough to at least question the decision? No? OK. The land-use ratio isn't something that can be ignored. The same 5,087 GW capacity would use about 2.5% of California if it was wind. Solar would require 30% of the State. Just think about what that implies in terms of every single factor that goes into building and maintaining such systems. This is why I argue grid-scale solar isn't making sense to me. Why use 12 times the land and over four times the batteries when you don't have to?
midoridensha 4y ago
What do you propose should be done for places that aren't windy, or times when there's no wind?
- robomartin 4y ago
  > What do you propose should be done for places that aren't windy, or times when there's no wind? Power is easy to move using transmission lines. For example, the Pacific DC Intertie is over 846 miles (1,361 km) long. It moves 3.1 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie Path 27 is 488 miles (785 km) and carries 2.4 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 Wind farms can be located as optimally as possible and the power transported where needed. Storage, both at the plant and along the transmission path if necessary. Not only does storage make power availability more constant, it can act as an aggregator and repeater. Bring in power from a thousand miles away to a storage station. Do so from multiple wind farms. Store the power and deliver it another thousand miles away to wherever it might be needed. I think the concerns about optimal wind farm location have been obsolete for a very long time, particularly as storage options improve in cost and performance.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this. The cost for Path 27 alone was $5.5B. Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions, and that doesn't include the wind turbines. What you describe isn't feasible.
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. That's not true. We haven't built it yet. That does not mean it is fiction. We don't need it today. > Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. Except for the few people who live off-grid, every single person on this planet is getting their power through transmission lines. Of course there's loss. So what? That's the way physics works. > 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this No. Current generation capacity is 1,200 GW. Don't hand-wave to add drama. There's a huge difference between "rough" and "way off". > Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions Well, yes. And that's what those proposing a transition to full electrification have to contend with and justify. I am not justifying any of it. I am simply proposing that grid-scale solar does not seem to compare well with grid-scale wind. That's all. Don't go somewhere I am not going. > What you describe isn't feasible. Technically, it is absolutely feasible. I am even suggesting the wind-only option might be far more realizable than the wind + solar version of Tesla's Master Plan 3. Financially? Well, Tesla's plan claims we need about ten trillion. You are welcome to argue against that plan if you'd like. I am not making a financial argument here other than to point out that I think wind would cost significantly less. Here's a beautiful map of current wind generation resources. We could do a lot more than this: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 BTW, here are wind resources across the US according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_resource_map-large.jpg https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_reso... Interesting thing is that power is proportional to the cube of wind velocity. A little more wind makes a lot more power. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Now compare wind and solar and existing hydro and 2-5% w2e to just wind instead of just wind vs. just solar. At a mix appropriate for the region (for example some regions get 800kWh/kWp/yr, others get 2400, wind ranges between 2000 and 5000), and include reasonable predictons of demand curves. Wind and solar are negatively correlated. Adding both reduces storage and makes the system more robust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_relationship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_relationship

robomartin 4y ago
> At a mix appropriate for the region We don't need to think regionally. We can move power thousands of miles. Yes, of course, it's easier over the ocean, however, we have the means to do so over land as well. For reference, a project from UK is moving power from approximately 4000 km away (Morocco). In other words, if wind --as I believe is the case-- has significant advantages over solar, we can locate wind wherever it makes sense and then move the power as far and wide as needed. We could spider out to various storage facilities and distribute to towns and cities. The point is, power is easy to move. We already do it. > Now compare wind and solar and existing hydro and 2-5% w2e to just wind instead of just wind vs. just solar I don't understand why you are asking for this comparison. My point is that grid-scale solar is a bad idea, by itself or mixed with something else, including wind. I gave most of the reasons in support of this conclusion in the comment you responded to. With solar we are starting with a technology that does not produce any power half the time, every day, forever. Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 (MPP3) figure 12 shows a close-up chart of a few days in July in the US. I reproduce it here for convenience: https://i.imgur.com/HTxWL6o.png https://i.imgur.com/HTxWL6o.png The variability of solar over time is massive. Not so for wind. particularly if located optimally and geographically distributed. In the US you cannot do any better with solar than that picture. Clouds, rain, snow and dirt will turn this: https://i.imgur.com/aNnbmDp.png https://i.imgur.com/aNnbmDp.png Into this nightmare: https://i.imgur.com/breTHQd.png https://i.imgur.com/breTHQd.png And so, reliability, capacity factor, availability, or whatever measure or term one might care to use for solar is always significantly inferior to that of wind. There's data on this. My question is rooted in optimization at many levels (list is not exaustive): - Energy production per installed GW - Land utilization - Ecological impact - Operation and maintenance costs - Storage requirements - Strategic supply chain factors - Scale of future waste/recycling problem Looking back at MPP3, table 6, we can ask a fundamental question: How much installed grid-sale capacity do we have to build? No new nuclear or hydro. The table, is reduced to onshore and offshore wind and solar. The total for those technologies is 5,087 GW. That's what we have to build. That's the challenge. My question is simple: We have to build 5,087 GW generation capacity. Given the optimization criteria list presented above. What combination of solar and wind would be optimal? Looking at the numbers, I cannot find justification for building almost any grid-scale solar. Let me give you a simple example of this... Solar requires at least four times more storage than wind to reach the same or similar reliability. I'll assume batteries. Well, that means at least four times more mining, processing, factories, CO2 emissions, damage to the ecosystem, transportation, installation and maintenance costs, mean time between failure, waste, recycling costs and effects, etc. And that's just one of my comparison vectors. Isn't that enough to at least question the decision? No? OK. The land-use ratio isn't something that can be ignored. The same 5,087 GW capacity would use about 2.5% of California if it was wind. Solar would require 30% of the State. Just think about what that implies in terms of every single factor that goes into building and maintaining such systems. This is why I argue grid-scale solar isn't making sense to me. Why use 12 times the land and over four times the batteries when you don't have to?

midoridensha 4y ago

What do you propose should be done for places that aren't windy, or times when there's no wind?

robomartin 4y ago
> What do you propose should be done for places that aren't windy, or times when there's no wind? Power is easy to move using transmission lines. For example, the Pacific DC Intertie is over 846 miles (1,361 km) long. It moves 3.1 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie Path 27 is 488 miles (785 km) and carries 2.4 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 Wind farms can be located as optimally as possible and the power transported where needed. Storage, both at the plant and along the transmission path if necessary. Not only does storage make power availability more constant, it can act as an aggregator and repeater. Bring in power from a thousand miles away to a storage station. Do so from multiple wind farms. Store the power and deliver it another thousand miles away to wherever it might be needed. I think the concerns about optimal wind farm location have been obsolete for a very long time, particularly as storage options improve in cost and performance.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this. The cost for Path 27 alone was $5.5B. Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions, and that doesn't include the wind turbines. What you describe isn't feasible.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. That's not true. We haven't built it yet. That does not mean it is fiction. We don't need it today. > Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. Except for the few people who live off-grid, every single person on this planet is getting their power through transmission lines. Of course there's loss. So what? That's the way physics works. > 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this No. Current generation capacity is 1,200 GW. Don't hand-wave to add drama. There's a huge difference between "rough" and "way off". > Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions Well, yes. And that's what those proposing a transition to full electrification have to contend with and justify. I am not justifying any of it. I am simply proposing that grid-scale solar does not seem to compare well with grid-scale wind. That's all. Don't go somewhere I am not going. > What you describe isn't feasible. Technically, it is absolutely feasible. I am even suggesting the wind-only option might be far more realizable than the wind + solar version of Tesla's Master Plan 3. Financially? Well, Tesla's plan claims we need about ten trillion. You are welcome to argue against that plan if you'd like. I am not making a financial argument here other than to point out that I think wind would cost significantly less. Here's a beautiful map of current wind generation resources. We could do a lot more than this: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 BTW, here are wind resources across the US according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_resource_map-large.jpg https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_reso... Interesting thing is that power is proportional to the cube of wind velocity. A little more wind makes a lot more power. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...