6 ms·

To me it reads like the author just handwaves away the problems of solar, the exercise is left to the reader. I also find it contradictory that if we find effic

by a_imho 3y ago

To me it reads like the author just handwaves away the problems of solar, the exercise is left to the reader. I also find it contradictory that if we find efficient ways to store/use surplus (solar)energy, why would that make baseload unnecessary instead of profitable? It makes no sense.

Gwypaas 3y ago
> why would that make baseload unnecessary instead of profitable It is an argument hinging on cost. The cost for new built renewables are in the range of what existing paid off nuclear and fossil plants cost in operations and maintenance. Try building new ones in that environment.
- a_imho 3y ago
  To a layperson like me, it is very hard to find the truth what is the true TCO when it comes to power plants, numbers depend on who you ask. E.g factoring in environmental impacts of manufacturing/shipping/fuel/installation, subsidies, how well does calculations generalizes across climates/countries/geography etc. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution, also, having diversity in the energy mix is valuable in itself.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ Use that to play with the numbers at different locations.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  > It is an argument hinging on cost. Well, if you ignore reliability. To decarbonize without rolling blackouts you need nuclear or storage.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    I think what you are missing from this discussion is that both renewables and nuclear require dispatchable power to fill the gaps. If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs. The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible, like the article goes into depths about. Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants. For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average. Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible? https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      > I think what you are missing from this discussion is that both renewables and nuclear require dispatchable power to fill the gaps. Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 101 stuff. Why would you assume I would be overlooking such an obvious thing? > If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs. That’s an interesting comparison. How did you come up with the cost comparison? A nuclear grid isn’t “impossible”. We already have a nuclear grid. What we don’t have is a 100% nuclear grid. > The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible Yes, because of the rules imposed on the electrical market. Begin by changing the rules so that they stop disincentivizing running nuclear at 100% all the time. Variable renewable sources should not be must take. Nuclear should be paid first and then, if there are any takers, variable renewables. Non-variable renewables should be free to eat nuclear’s lunch. > Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants. Only because must take rules and renewables using other generation to compensate for their variability. > For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average. Again, this is only due to outdated energy market rules. If > Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said or implied that 100% renewable grids are impossible. Clearly they are from a theoretical perspective and small grids have been built using 100% renewables. What I am specifically asking is, how are nation size grids going to be decarbonized, i.e. turned into 100% renewable grids in practice and what timescales are required? As far as I can tell we either need a boatload of new nuclear, storage and/or megaprojects to build out trans/intercontinental transmission networks. Storage projections don’t look optimistic. Trans/intercontinental megaprojects are hard and come with fun spices such as geopolitical risks and massive failure modes. Nukes are expensive and take a long time to build, but at least we know how to do it. If we don’t have a plan and know how to build TWh grid storage faster than new nukes, then we should start mass producing nukes right now. At least we’ll have the nukes built eventually.

by a_imho 3y ago

Gwypaas 3y ago

> why would that make baseload unnecessary instead of profitable It is an argument hinging on cost. The cost for new built renewables are in the range of what existing paid off nuclear and fossil plants cost in operations and maintenance. Try building new ones in that environment.

a_imho 3y ago
To a layperson like me, it is very hard to find the truth what is the true TCO when it comes to power plants, numbers depend on who you ask. E.g factoring in environmental impacts of manufacturing/shipping/fuel/installation, subsidies, how well does calculations generalizes across climates/countries/geography etc. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution, also, having diversity in the energy mix is valuable in itself.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ Use that to play with the numbers at different locations.
ftth_finland 3y ago
> It is an argument hinging on cost. Well, if you ignore reliability. To decarbonize without rolling blackouts you need nuclear or storage.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  I think what you are missing from this discussion is that both renewables and nuclear require dispatchable power to fill the gaps. If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs. The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible, like the article goes into depths about. Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants. For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average. Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible? https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    > I think what you are missing from this discussion is that both renewables and nuclear require dispatchable power to fill the gaps. Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 101 stuff. Why would you assume I would be overlooking such an obvious thing? > If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs. That’s an interesting comparison. How did you come up with the cost comparison? A nuclear grid isn’t “impossible”. We already have a nuclear grid. What we don’t have is a 100% nuclear grid. > The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible Yes, because of the rules imposed on the electrical market. Begin by changing the rules so that they stop disincentivizing running nuclear at 100% all the time. Variable renewable sources should not be must take. Nuclear should be paid first and then, if there are any takers, variable renewables. Non-variable renewables should be free to eat nuclear’s lunch. > Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants. Only because must take rules and renewables using other generation to compensate for their variability. > For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average. Again, this is only due to outdated energy market rules. If > Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said or implied that 100% renewable grids are impossible. Clearly they are from a theoretical perspective and small grids have been built using 100% renewables. What I am specifically asking is, how are nation size grids going to be decarbonized, i.e. turned into 100% renewable grids in practice and what timescales are required? As far as I can tell we either need a boatload of new nuclear, storage and/or megaprojects to build out trans/intercontinental transmission networks. Storage projections don’t look optimistic. Trans/intercontinental megaprojects are hard and come with fun spices such as geopolitical risks and massive failure modes. Nukes are expensive and take a long time to build, but at least we know how to do it. If we don’t have a plan and know how to build TWh grid storage faster than new nukes, then we should start mass producing nukes right now. At least we’ll have the nukes built eventually.