3 ms·

Yes, intermittent (sun/wind) only could work with enough storage. Do you know if/when we could get enough safe storage ? My understanding is batteries is not

by llsf 3y ago

Yes, intermittent (sun/wind) only could work with enough storage. Do you know if/when we could get enough safe storage ? My understanding is batteries is not possible at the scale we would need. Pumping water where it is possible would be nice, but not sure if it would be enough. Do we know the storage capacity than US for instance would need, if only using solar and wind ? Note that the cooling argument would be the same for coal or gas power plant. They work the same way. So, until enough storage is in place, we might need some base production, and it would require access to cold source (river or ocean). France had to reduce the activity of some nuclear power plants last summer because they have rules when it comes to river temperature. The next 8 reactors that France is planning to build would likely be build on the ocean's shore for that reason. The cost of nuclear electricity is mostly impacted by the cost of money. That is why the cost of electricity from a UK nuclear power plant is more expensive than from France nuclear power plant. The UK used private capital (higher interest) when France use gov funds (lower interest). It is correct that it takes time to build a plant, and it requires expertise. But it is also true that a power plant can run for decades (US and France pushing to 80 years) as anything in a plant can be upgraded over time (except the pool). Until there is an efficient storage technology that can be deployed at large scale, we might need to run some nuclear power plants. No idea for how long ?

sharemywin 3y ago
Wonder if this could help: Iron-Air Batteries Are Here. They May Alter the Future of Energy. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/iron-air-battery-energy-storage/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/ir...
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Maybe - but remember that lithium ion batteries were first developed in the 1970s. It wasn't until the 2010s that they became so widespread and cheap.
nborwankar 3y ago
A counterintuitive alternative is to invest a fraction of the costs of nuclear in cleaning up emissions from coal plants. We seem to have swung too far by shutting down a reliable source of energy when mitigating technologies to filter emissions [1] and next generation cleaner extraction technologies [2] are coming online to massively improve coal driven electric power generation. These technologies are DoE funded and patented the former has been deployed in production at a 100 Mw plant the latter is at a pilot stage in a 30Mw research generator at a university. In any case coal is not going away and there is no single “answer” to the planet’s energy needs. A resilient grid requires a portfolio of energy sources including nuclear but it’s by no means the single answer as the title of the post suggests. Uranium is “carbon free” but “radioactive waste full” and creates multigenerational environmental debt in the form of waste - nuke proponents usually hand wave and talk in generalities when it comes to this topic. Note the comment that “90% of materials in a nuclear reactor can be recycled” deftly sidestepping the 10% that will live on in deadly form for thousands of years with no solution in sight. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568623/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568623/ Google “Biswas Washington University Enhanced Electrostatic Precipitation” for more [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3817794 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3817794 Google “Axelbaum Washington University staged pressurized oxy combustion” for more
- llsf 3y ago
  The radioactive waste is fairly small. US is the country in the world with the most nuclear power plants. US produces yearly: " The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool" source: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... "More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do." But even if like US does (i.e. does not re-use the waste), less than half of olympic pool is pretty small given the amount of energy produced. Ideally US would re-use the waste, and vitrified the final waste, and then producing even less volume of waste. Then store it. Properly packed it is not "in deadly form for thousands of years with no solution in sight". Most countries store it deep for 50 years, and then it is safe to dispose on near-surface disposal at ground level, or in caverns below ground level. Radioactivity is everywhere e.g. with radon (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/radon-zones-map.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/ra...) at 4 pCi/L 7 our 1000 people will develop lung cancer. Flight attendants get their fair share too. Our body is prepared to fix itself when attacked by radiation. https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
richardw 3y ago
One alternative is that you overbuild and connect very widely. China has 3000+km power connections. If you do that you can connect to remote wind, which is never not blowing somewhere within 3000km of you. During the day, solar nearer the equator could power areas further away. That’s not the full answer but definitely a useful addition to storage. There are also battery tech like liquid metal that is being more widely tested and suits grid storage. That scales like crazy if it works.

by llsf 3y ago

sharemywin 3y ago

Wonder if this could help: Iron-Air Batteries Are Here. They May Alter the Future of Energy. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/iron-air-battery-energy-storage/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/ir...

Manuel_D 3y ago
Maybe - but remember that lithium ion batteries were first developed in the 1970s. It wasn't until the 2010s that they became so widespread and cheap.

nborwankar 3y ago

A counterintuitive alternative is to invest a fraction of the costs of nuclear in cleaning up emissions from coal plants. We seem to have swung too far by shutting down a reliable source of energy when mitigating technologies to filter emissions [1] and next generation cleaner extraction technologies [2] are coming online to massively improve coal driven electric power generation. These technologies are DoE funded and patented the former has been deployed in production at a 100 Mw plant the latter is at a pilot stage in a 30Mw research generator at a university. In any case coal is not going away and there is no single “answer” to the planet’s energy needs. A resilient grid requires a portfolio of energy sources including nuclear but it’s by no means the single answer as the title of the post suggests. Uranium is “carbon free” but “radioactive waste full” and creates multigenerational environmental debt in the form of waste - nuke proponents usually hand wave and talk in generalities when it comes to this topic. Note the comment that “90% of materials in a nuclear reactor can be recycled” deftly sidestepping the 10% that will live on in deadly form for thousands of years with no solution in sight. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568623/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568623/ Google “Biswas Washington University Enhanced Electrostatic Precipitation” for more [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3817794 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3817794 Google “Axelbaum Washington University staged pressurized oxy combustion” for more

llsf 3y ago
The radioactive waste is fairly small. US is the country in the world with the most nuclear power plants. US produces yearly: " The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool" source: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... "More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do." But even if like US does (i.e. does not re-use the waste), less than half of olympic pool is pretty small given the amount of energy produced. Ideally US would re-use the waste, and vitrified the final waste, and then producing even less volume of waste. Then store it. Properly packed it is not "in deadly form for thousands of years with no solution in sight". Most countries store it deep for 50 years, and then it is safe to dispose on near-surface disposal at ground level, or in caverns below ground level. Radioactivity is everywhere e.g. with radon (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/radon-zones-map.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/ra...) at 4 pCi/L 7 our 1000 people will develop lung cancer. Flight attendants get their fair share too. Our body is prepared to fix itself when attacked by radiation. https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

richardw 3y ago

One alternative is that you overbuild and connect very widely. China has 3000+km power connections. If you do that you can connect to remote wind, which is never not blowing somewhere within 3000km of you. During the day, solar nearer the equator could power areas further away. That’s not the full answer but definitely a useful addition to storage. There are also battery tech like liquid metal that is being more widely tested and suits grid storage. That scales like crazy if it works.