4 ms·

You're assuming this much storage exists. And I'd love to see all the calculations that include the need to overbuild, the need for storage etc.

pydry 3y ago
No, I'm assuming it can be built because the unit economics work better. Back in 2013 I remember people used to constantly trash solar and wind because it was 1-2% of the grid anywhere, max, while nuclear power was often 10-30% (or 70% in France). We're at that same point with storage. Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power due to the high cost and enormous growth in renewables due to it being 5x cheaper. Unit economics prevailed with solar and wind and theyll prevail with storage. solar + wind + 8 hours storage is not just the cheapest way to get to a 98% carbon free grid it's also the fastest. Gas is still the cheapest "battery" by far though, which is why so many countries use it as baseload and peaking. Pumped storage, batteries and syngas combined only make renewables a cheaper baseload/peaker than nuclear power.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power and enormous growth in renewables. The only reason we've had decline in nuclear is politics. That's why now Germany is busy burning coal and importing electricity. > Unit economics prevailed before and theyll prevail again. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. Where are the calculations? That include both the need to ridiculously overbuild renewables and the need for the so-far-nonexistent grid scale storage?
  - pydry 3y ago
    Germany is burning less coal than it used to 10 years ago. Somehow this fact is not only relatively unknown, most people seem to have been led to believe that the exact opposite is true. Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      > Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem. Propaganda cuts both ways. For example, you completely ignore the reality that the sun doesn't shine at night ad that the wind doesn't alway blow. So Germany shut down its nuclear plants an now is burning coal to compensate. Someone literally advocates for rolling blackouts in a sibling thread because renewable generation is intermittent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675328 This is a good comment describing the current situation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660884
- pjc50 3y ago
  This whole article illustrates a huge benefit of solar over nuclear: if you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy, while if you build 90% of a nuclear plant, you get nothing. The power of incremental deployment.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    > you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy No. You get 0% to 90% of energy. E.g., right now in Germany solar is at 22% of its capacity. Wind is at 11%
    - pydry 3y ago
      On average you get 30% of capacity. But, a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant and starts chipping away at gas and coal usage almost straight away, not in 15-20 years.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        > On average you get 30% of capacity. Average means nothing when the output is zero (at night). > a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant And produces zero electricity at night.
2b3a51 3y ago
Just a random idea: given the nature of Cuban society would neighbourhood or house level batteries be viable? Enough to store your electricity needs for (say) two or three days. So you can smooth out the day/night wind/calm cycles to some extent? Tangential: given the state of the structures in the OA is it really possible this facility can be completed without effectively rebuilding it?
- illiarian 3y ago
  > given the nature of Cuban society would neighbourhood or house level batteries be viable? Possibly maybe? You need 10kW per household per day with generous electricity consumption [1] Retail prices for 10kW batteries seem to be in the range of $5k to infinity. At scale this will be cheaper, but then the question then becomes the same: availability at this scale [1] https://solaremporium.com.au/blog/how-long-will-a-10kw-battery-last/ https://solaremporium.com.au/blog/how-long-will-a-10kw-batte...
  - gliptic 3y ago
    What's with this widespread confusion between kW and kWh, especially from supposed experts in solar power...
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
This plan for Hawaii is probably roughly in the same ballpark: https://www.wartsila.com/energy/towards-100-renewable-energy/atlas-of-100-percent-renewable-energy#/country/US-HI https://www.wartsila.com/energy/towards-100-renewable-energy...
- illiarian 3y ago
  That is a "model" tat is very handwavy about a lot of things. 36% battery power capable of sustaining Hawaii for 11 hours. 4% is "flexible gas" from "carbon-neutral synthetic fuels" that will be produced using "excess renewable energy", etc. No numbers except "flexible solution is 68% cheaper than just overbuilding renewables". "All technology options have been priced at their expected costs at year 2030." These are not calculations. These are marketing materials for Wärtsilä Edit: There are some interesting things though. For example, if you click on solar, they show that you need 3.4x installed solar capacity compared to peak load. And (emphaisis mine): "Because the sun is only shining for part of the day, solar panels can on average over the whole day produce energy at maximum of around 25% of their installed capacity"
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    I know xkcd thinks we should celebrate the 10,000 people learning something new each day, but I wish people would hold back from having strong opinions on renewables if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      > if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds. If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding. And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.
      - pydry 3y ago
        Oh they absolutely do. "did you know you need to overbuild?" is well up there with "did you know the sun doesnt shine at night?" A solar farm with a nameplate capacity of 1 GW is about 5% of the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. The need for overbuilding pushes the price up to roughly 20% of the cost. Adding all the necessary storage to provide peaking can push it all the way up to ~80% of the cost of a nuclear power station. Storage is kind of a moot point anyway these days. Most grids don't even have enough nameplate capacity to supply 100% of demand for even 1 day a year. With a few exceptions every GWh produced at any time by any solar panel or turbine - is just a GWh of gas that can be burned some other day.

pydry 3y ago

No, I'm assuming it can be built because the unit economics work better. Back in 2013 I remember people used to constantly trash solar and wind because it was 1-2% of the grid anywhere, max, while nuclear power was often 10-30% (or 70% in France). We're at that same point with storage. Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power due to the high cost and enormous growth in renewables due to it being 5x cheaper. Unit economics prevailed with solar and wind and theyll prevail with storage. solar + wind + 8 hours storage is not just the cheapest way to get to a 98% carbon free grid it's also the fastest. Gas is still the cheapest "battery" by far though, which is why so many countries use it as baseload and peaking. Pumped storage, batteries and syngas combined only make renewables a cheaper baseload/peaker than nuclear power.

illiarian 3y ago
> Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power and enormous growth in renewables. The only reason we've had decline in nuclear is politics. That's why now Germany is busy burning coal and importing electricity. > Unit economics prevailed before and theyll prevail again. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. Where are the calculations? That include both the need to ridiculously overbuild renewables and the need for the so-far-nonexistent grid scale storage?
- pydry 3y ago
  Germany is burning less coal than it used to 10 years ago. Somehow this fact is not only relatively unknown, most people seem to have been led to believe that the exact opposite is true. Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    > Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem. Propaganda cuts both ways. For example, you completely ignore the reality that the sun doesn't shine at night ad that the wind doesn't alway blow. So Germany shut down its nuclear plants an now is burning coal to compensate. Someone literally advocates for rolling blackouts in a sibling thread because renewable generation is intermittent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675328 This is a good comment describing the current situation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660884
pjc50 3y ago
This whole article illustrates a huge benefit of solar over nuclear: if you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy, while if you build 90% of a nuclear plant, you get nothing. The power of incremental deployment.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy No. You get 0% to 90% of energy. E.g., right now in Germany solar is at 22% of its capacity. Wind is at 11%
  - pydry 3y ago
    On average you get 30% of capacity. But, a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant and starts chipping away at gas and coal usage almost straight away, not in 15-20 years.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      > On average you get 30% of capacity. Average means nothing when the output is zero (at night). > a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant And produces zero electricity at night.

2b3a51 3y ago

Just a random idea: given the nature of Cuban society would neighbourhood or house level batteries be viable? Enough to store your electricity needs for (say) two or three days. So you can smooth out the day/night wind/calm cycles to some extent? Tangential: given the state of the structures in the OA is it really possible this facility can be completed without effectively rebuilding it?

illiarian 3y ago
> given the nature of Cuban society would neighbourhood or house level batteries be viable? Possibly maybe? You need 10kW per household per day with generous electricity consumption [1] Retail prices for 10kW batteries seem to be in the range of $5k to infinity. At scale this will be cheaper, but then the question then becomes the same: availability at this scale [1] https://solaremporium.com.au/blog/how-long-will-a-10kw-battery-last/ https://solaremporium.com.au/blog/how-long-will-a-10kw-batte...
- gliptic 3y ago
  What's with this widespread confusion between kW and kWh, especially from supposed experts in solar power...

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

This plan for Hawaii is probably roughly in the same ballpark: https://www.wartsila.com/energy/towards-100-renewable-energy/atlas-of-100-percent-renewable-energy#/country/US-HI https://www.wartsila.com/energy/towards-100-renewable-energy...

illiarian 3y ago
That is a "model" tat is very handwavy about a lot of things. 36% battery power capable of sustaining Hawaii for 11 hours. 4% is "flexible gas" from "carbon-neutral synthetic fuels" that will be produced using "excess renewable energy", etc. No numbers except "flexible solution is 68% cheaper than just overbuilding renewables". "All technology options have been priced at their expected costs at year 2030." These are not calculations. These are marketing materials for Wärtsilä Edit: There are some interesting things though. For example, if you click on solar, they show that you need 3.4x installed solar capacity compared to peak load. And (emphaisis mine): "Because the sun is only shining for part of the day, solar panels can on average over the whole day produce energy at maximum of around 25% of their installed capacity"
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  I know xkcd thinks we should celebrate the 10,000 people learning something new each day, but I wish people would hold back from having strong opinions on renewables if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    > if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds. If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding. And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.
    - pydry 3y ago
      Oh they absolutely do. "did you know you need to overbuild?" is well up there with "did you know the sun doesnt shine at night?" A solar farm with a nameplate capacity of 1 GW is about 5% of the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. The need for overbuilding pushes the price up to roughly 20% of the cost. Adding all the necessary storage to provide peaking can push it all the way up to ~80% of the cost of a nuclear power station. Storage is kind of a moot point anyway these days. Most grids don't even have enough nameplate capacity to supply 100% of demand for even 1 day a year. With a few exceptions every GWh produced at any time by any solar panel or turbine - is just a GWh of gas that can be burned some other day.