5 ms·

> it'd be quite straightforward to power the grid using 90% renewables using the existing plants for the last hard 10%. Sadly incorrect. You can see the variat

> it'd be quite straightforward to power the grid using 90% renewables using the existing plants for the last hard 10%. Sadly incorrect. You can see the variation of wind and solar we get here in the UK at: https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ As you can see, fossil fuels are about a 1/3rd of power and we expand renewables by maybe another 30% before we start getting excess power. After that point, you start to have excess power while no longer reducing CO2 by much as you still need the Nat gas for the cloudy and still days. In practice you might be able to get to 75% non-fossil fuels before you're firmly into the realm of diminishing returns without a big storage breakthrough or a doubling/tripling of electricity costs (its triple to go pure wind and current tech energy storage because you need up to weeks of storage to not have blackouts, but with a nuclear power expansion youd only need a doubling).

bryanlarsen 3y ago
90% is easier in North America where I'm based due to our large grids. But you've already implemented part of the solution to get to 90% -- bidirectional HVDC grids with Norway. Sell cheap wind power when you can and buy hydro when you can't. But even if you can't easily get to 90% why not celebrate the fact that 75% is easy. Sure the last 25% is hard, but 75% good news and 25% bad news is not what I see in the news articles.
- Projectiboga 3y ago
  Isn't nuclear nearly 20% of the USA power mix? I've never liked fission but it's there and lots of effort to design a next generation of it which would be able to use nuclear waste and maybe make that less hazardous.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    The problem with breeder reactors isn't, and never has been, an engineering one. It's a relatively simple process, so far as nuclear physics is concerned. The problem is that the anti-nuclear cowards don't want to make plutonium easily available. Nevermind the fact that we already have one of the largest nuclear arsenals (maybe the biggest, given Russia's gross mismanagement as of late), and pose no real proliferation risk, since we already have all the plutonium our hearts desire.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The problem with breeder reactors is that they're even more expensive than burner reactors. And there is no need for them unless nuclear takes off big time, which it won't, because it has lost the race to renewables. Breeders are from an obsolete vision of the future where we'd have an order of magnitude more nuclear power plants than we do now. In that future, uranium would start to be in short supply. But that didn't happen, uranium remains cheap, and breeders have no business case.
laurencerowe 3y ago
While we do get into diminishing returns beyond about 75% non fossil fuels you can over provision renewables several times for the cost of new nuclear power or storage. New offshore wind projects in the UK contract to produce power at about 40% the cost of new nuclear, about the same as gas before the Ukraine war interruptions. And that’s before the 45% construction cost overrun on Hinkley Point C that EDF is responsible for. Onshore wind would be half the price of offshore but we’ve stopped building it because Tories. Over provisioning a mix of renewables is likely the most cost effective route to greening the electricity supply. Modelling for Denmark shows over 90% of its electricity consumption could be provided through modestly over provisioning renewables 1.5-2x along with 4-12h of storage and 99% with 3-4x over provisioning renewables and 48h of storage. https://x.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1565923581246091264 https://x.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1565923581246091264

bryanlarsen 3y ago

90% is easier in North America where I'm based due to our large grids. But you've already implemented part of the solution to get to 90% -- bidirectional HVDC grids with Norway. Sell cheap wind power when you can and buy hydro when you can't. But even if you can't easily get to 90% why not celebrate the fact that 75% is easy. Sure the last 25% is hard, but 75% good news and 25% bad news is not what I see in the news articles.

Projectiboga 3y ago
Isn't nuclear nearly 20% of the USA power mix? I've never liked fission but it's there and lots of effort to design a next generation of it which would be able to use nuclear waste and maybe make that less hazardous.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  The problem with breeder reactors isn't, and never has been, an engineering one. It's a relatively simple process, so far as nuclear physics is concerned. The problem is that the anti-nuclear cowards don't want to make plutonium easily available. Nevermind the fact that we already have one of the largest nuclear arsenals (maybe the biggest, given Russia's gross mismanagement as of late), and pose no real proliferation risk, since we already have all the plutonium our hearts desire.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The problem with breeder reactors is that they're even more expensive than burner reactors. And there is no need for them unless nuclear takes off big time, which it won't, because it has lost the race to renewables. Breeders are from an obsolete vision of the future where we'd have an order of magnitude more nuclear power plants than we do now. In that future, uranium would start to be in short supply. But that didn't happen, uranium remains cheap, and breeders have no business case.

laurencerowe 3y ago

While we do get into diminishing returns beyond about 75% non fossil fuels you can over provision renewables several times for the cost of new nuclear power or storage. New offshore wind projects in the UK contract to produce power at about 40% the cost of new nuclear, about the same as gas before the Ukraine war interruptions. And that’s before the 45% construction cost overrun on Hinkley Point C that EDF is responsible for. Onshore wind would be half the price of offshore but we’ve stopped building it because Tories. Over provisioning a mix of renewables is likely the most cost effective route to greening the electricity supply. Modelling for Denmark shows over 90% of its electricity consumption could be provided through modestly over provisioning renewables 1.5-2x along with 4-12h of storage and 99% with 3-4x over provisioning renewables and 48h of storage. https://x.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1565923581246091264 https://x.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1565923581246091264