4 ms·

It comes from 20% capacity factor versus 90% capacity factor. Replacing 500 GW of nuclear will vaguely require 2,000 GW of solar. The problem is you want to bu

by _hypx 3y ago

It comes from 20% capacity factor versus 90% capacity factor. Replacing 500 GW of nuclear will vaguely require 2,000 GW of solar. The problem is you want to build it in the southwest of the US, and has a long ways to go to reach the rest of the US. That will be a challenge. If you think nuclear has a load-following problem, you have no idea how big the problem for solar will be! And cost will go down, not up when we build more. The cost is because we build them so slow and only one at a time. If we built 500 at once, cost per GW will drop dramatic. Anti-nuclear people are just being dishonest about economics. Ultimately, even if we had to spend a few trillion dollars on this, it will still save money in the long run.

ben_w 3y ago
"A few trillion dollars" is enough for a global HVDC grid sufficient for global energy demand (why yes, I did do the maths, it's in an old comment of mine somewhere on here), and you previously gave me a link saying a hydrogen pipe was x10 cheaper, and electrolysis doesn't care if its nuclear or PV, and PV is much cheaper than nuclear per MWh when you don't have to add on the storage which you obviously don't in this scenario because that would be double-counting. And the US already has north-south lines (with a Texas-shaped asterisk), so even without a global grid the "winter?" question is: what's the capacity of those lines and substations, and how much loss are people willing to face when the price at the plant is only 1-2¢/kWh.
- _hypx 3y ago
  First of all, that is unlikely to ever happen. It is likely geopolitically impossible. But also it is very fragile as you still do not have any real backup power generation. Ultimately, it will make more sense to build system of hydrogen distribution and storage. As you already known, this is 10x cheaper than your HVDC idea.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > But also it is very fragile as you still do not have any real backup power generation Don't need one. Always light somewhere. Have repeatedly agreed about the political difficulties here since before you created your account.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... I've had similar conversations before this website. I know what I'm talking about here. What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. And in the end, this is also a zero emissions solution. And works entirely with renewable energy. Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas?
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... which we do > I've had similar conversations before this website. The meme with Principal Skiner asking "am I out of touch? no it's everyone else who is wrong" comes to mind > I know what I'm talking about here. no you don't > What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. no i'm not > Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. not ridiculous; probably politically unviable, but I've done the maths and it's fine from a simple engineering POV 0.5-2.2¢/kWh even if such a grid needs to be given a trillion dollar overhaul every decade, not that you have shown any capacity to integrate new information in this topic… > The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. even a genuinely global (40,000 km) multi-TW grid is cheaper than nuclear, and even bog-standard current HVDC (where you'd be making it of thousands of different segments with combined cross section of 1-2 m^2 instead of a more efficient configuration) isn't a majority of the power being lost, it's at most half. Also, looking up the best-case efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells[1] and electrolysis[0], you get the same losses as for the dumbest possible HVDC solution, even if h2 transport is lossless (which it isn't). > The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. An alternative solution. One of many. > Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas? I'm not, you are. "Look in a mirror". [0] 84% last year, and higher numbers are misrepresentation https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-temperature-electrolyzer-achieves-record-efficiency#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20first%20time%2C%20the,one%20else%20has%20achieved%20before https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-te... [1] 85% when waste heat is captured for use in co-generation, but only 60% directly, which matters a lot for transport
epistasis 3y ago
> Anti-nuclear people are just being dishonest about economics. Ultimately, even if we had to spend a few trillion dollars on this, it will still save money in the long run. On the contrary, the only people who are being dishonest about nuclear are those advocating for a large nuclear build! Use your own numbers here, actually run them, and you will see that nuclear is more expensive than solar, and indeed even more expensive than solar plus storage at today's prices for storage. Your assertion that building hundreds of nuclear reactors at once will decrease prices drastically has been proven decisively wrong, again and again But in contrast, building lots of solar and storage has proven to decrease costs of these technologies over decades. Literally ever testable assertion in your comment is false, based on thoughts from behind rose-colored glasses from more than a decade ago. It's time to revisit the data and the numbers and see where the world's technology is on costs.

by _hypx 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

"A few trillion dollars" is enough for a global HVDC grid sufficient for global energy demand (why yes, I did do the maths, it's in an old comment of mine somewhere on here), and you previously gave me a link saying a hydrogen pipe was x10 cheaper, and electrolysis doesn't care if its nuclear or PV, and PV is much cheaper than nuclear per MWh when you don't have to add on the storage which you obviously don't in this scenario because that would be double-counting. And the US already has north-south lines (with a Texas-shaped asterisk), so even without a global grid the "winter?" question is: what's the capacity of those lines and substations, and how much loss are people willing to face when the price at the plant is only 1-2¢/kWh.

_hypx 3y ago
First of all, that is unlikely to ever happen. It is likely geopolitically impossible. But also it is very fragile as you still do not have any real backup power generation. Ultimately, it will make more sense to build system of hydrogen distribution and storage. As you already known, this is 10x cheaper than your HVDC idea.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > But also it is very fragile as you still do not have any real backup power generation Don't need one. Always light somewhere. Have repeatedly agreed about the political difficulties here since before you created your account.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... I've had similar conversations before this website. I know what I'm talking about here. What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. And in the end, this is also a zero emissions solution. And works entirely with renewable energy. Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... which we do > I've had similar conversations before this website. The meme with Principal Skiner asking "am I out of touch? no it's everyone else who is wrong" comes to mind > I know what I'm talking about here. no you don't > What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. no i'm not > Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. not ridiculous; probably politically unviable, but I've done the maths and it's fine from a simple engineering POV 0.5-2.2¢/kWh even if such a grid needs to be given a trillion dollar overhaul every decade, not that you have shown any capacity to integrate new information in this topic… > The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. even a genuinely global (40,000 km) multi-TW grid is cheaper than nuclear, and even bog-standard current HVDC (where you'd be making it of thousands of different segments with combined cross section of 1-2 m^2 instead of a more efficient configuration) isn't a majority of the power being lost, it's at most half. Also, looking up the best-case efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells[1] and electrolysis[0], you get the same losses as for the dumbest possible HVDC solution, even if h2 transport is lossless (which it isn't). > The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. An alternative solution. One of many. > Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas? I'm not, you are. "Look in a mirror". [0] 84% last year, and higher numbers are misrepresentation https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-temperature-electrolyzer-achieves-record-efficiency#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20first%20time%2C%20the,one%20else%20has%20achieved%20before https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-te... [1] 85% when waste heat is captured for use in co-generation, but only 60% directly, which matters a lot for transport

epistasis 3y ago

> Anti-nuclear people are just being dishonest about economics. Ultimately, even if we had to spend a few trillion dollars on this, it will still save money in the long run. On the contrary, the only people who are being dishonest about nuclear are those advocating for a large nuclear build! Use your own numbers here, actually run them, and you will see that nuclear is more expensive than solar, and indeed even more expensive than solar plus storage at today's prices for storage. Your assertion that building hundreds of nuclear reactors at once will decrease prices drastically has been proven decisively wrong, again and again But in contrast, building lots of solar and storage has proven to decrease costs of these technologies over decades. Literally ever testable assertion in your comment is false, based on thoughts from behind rose-colored glasses from more than a decade ago. It's time to revisit the data and the numbers and see where the world's technology is on costs.