4 ms·

>And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives were better. I believe we passed the point where solar with storage is better. It's certainly fast

>And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives were better. I believe we passed the point where solar with storage is better. It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". Solar has kept falling in price this year as well, while nuclear is always revealed to be more expensive every time a new study is made.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". The cost of storage isn't just the conversion losses. You also need the storage hardware, and for it to have enough capacity for an extended period of low generation. Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? No one seems to be able to answer this, and the closest I've seen is something like "keep all of the existing natural gas plants operational and use them to burn hydrogen instead, but only when renewable generation is low." Which is just preposterously expensive -- you'd have to maintain an entire redundant set of generating plants that you hardly ever use and that themselves cost almost as much as nuclear power plants do. But that is still less expensive than trying to build a week's worth of storage capacity using something like lithium batteries. And both of them have the problem that you have to choose in advance how much storage capacity to build, but if you build too much you've doubled your costs and if you build too little then people freeze to death.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >The cost of storage isn't just the conversion losses. You also need the storage hardware That is also included in the estimates of course and solar+storage is still cheaper. Solar is so cheap that individuals are themselves paying to get it on the roofs of their homes and get returns from the investments inside a quarter of the life expectancy of the panels despite being taxed on everything involved, sometimes even the production of electricity. Small communities have made off-grid hydrogen fuel stations, including electrolyzers and storage. It's so cheap that basically anyone can do it. Certainly any corporation that is making money can do it, and will do it, as soon as they realize it's cheaper than grid-electricity. >"keep all of the existing natural gas plants operational and use them to burn hydrogen instead, but only when renewable generation is low." Which is just preposterously expensive Any gas plant still being operational would be running all the time and be part of the base supply just like it is today. You would mix hydrogen in with the natural gas gradually as production capacity is increased, so for the first 100s of TWh you wouldn't even need to invest in anything but hydrogen production. Compared to replacing the same amount of energy with nuclear it will be very cheap, maybe orders of magnitude cheaper. Ironically that's also the main problem I see with it - there are many large power plant investments already made that will become unprofitable if solar+storage starts dictating the price of electricity, not just nuclear. There are many laws in many countries that only exist to make it hard for private actors to produce their own electricity.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > That is also included in the estimates of course and solar+storage is still cheaper. I don't believe that it is. > Solar is so cheap that individuals are themselves paying to get it on the roofs of their homes and get returns from the investments inside a quarter of the life expectancy of the panels despite being taxed on everything involved, sometimes even the production of electricity. Because they have free land (existing empty roof) and are using grid power from nuclear and fossil fuels whenever the sun isn't shining. Everybody knows solar is cheaper during the day, the question is how do you heat your house at night. > Small communities have made off-grid hydrogen fuel stations, including electrolyzers and storage. It's so cheap that basically anyone can do it. It's cheap in the sense that you can build one at small scale. How much is it to build 500GW worth of capacity and then store enough hydrogen to run it for ten days straight? > Any gas plant still being operational would be running all the time and be part of the base supply just like it is today. Not if its purpose is to supply power during periods of low generation. Suppose you have a bunch of wind turbines that on average generate 500 GW of power. Sometimes it's 950 GW, sometimes it's 50 GW. Then you have 500 GW of average demand. When they generate in excess of demand you want to use the excess to produce hydrogen. Okay, fine, but that's about half the time, so already your combustion-based power plants are operating at most at half duty cycle. But the renewable output is more of a bell curve. The midpoint is 500GW but 450GW or 550GW are way more common than 950GW or 50GW. The problem is you still need enough generating capacity for when it's 50GW. You have to maintain 450GW of alternate capacity even though you don't need the majority of it except for on rare occasions. > You would mix hydrogen in with the natural gas gradually as production capacity is increased, so for the first 100s of TWh you wouldn't even need to invest in anything but hydrogen production. Constructing the existing plants is a sunk cost but that doesn't mean it wasn't a cost. You still have to maintain them and build new ones as they age out, you can't recover the cost of the land by selling it. And you could get a similar efficiency by converting the existing sites to nuclear, reusing the land and steam-to-power generating equipment and grid connection. But then you get power ~100% of the time because the fuel cost is negligible. > Ironically that's also the main problem I see with it - there are many large power plant investments already made that will become unprofitable if solar+storage starts dictating the price of electricity, not just nuclear. There are many laws in many countries that only exist to make it hard for private actors to produce their own electricity. The real problem here is that if you did a straight free market design, the result would be that power is very cheap 95% of the time and then costs multiple dollars per kWh during extended periods of low generation. That would allow long-term storage technologies and reliable generation methods to recover their costs from the times they're most needed, and use pricing to suppress demand when supply is low. But then instead of having a $100/month electric bill, people would pay $20/month eleven months out of the year and then the month when there isn't enough capacity it would be $1000, unless they can severely limit their use during that time, which generally means something like turning down their thermostat in the winter. Which, of course, people hate. The alternative is to have the power company smooth it out, so you always pay $100/month and they take the extra $80 most months to build nuclear reactors that can supply reliable power. In the end it comes out about the same but then people don't get a huge surprise bill once in a while.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies, and interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. If say, Washington is suddenly devoid of sun and wind, there's a lot of places around it could buy power from. And be the seller when the reverse happens.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. > interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? The generators in another party of the country still have to satisfy the same load they normally do. And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. And the reverse when there isn't enough generation for the air conditioning load in the south in the summer. To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for, specifically to satisfy the demand in another part of the country on rare occasions, and build and maintain thousands of miles of HVDC lines that are hardly ever used. With enough redundancy that you don't shut off power to half the country if a truck veers off the highway and crashes into one. This is supposed to be the cheapest option?
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      > This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. Not all of them. A small fraction. > Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? From other regions with different weather patterns. > And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. Exactly, you build in each place what it's best suited for. > If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. So you pull from the rest of the country as well. That's what a national grid is for. Every place ends up with some capacity to overproduce, so when a given region has 50% of what it needs, it pulls 10% from 5 places each. > To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for Why opposite? > This is supposed to be the cheapest option? Sure. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear. So overbuilding solar and wind is still cost competitive. At this point solar is less than half the price of nuclear. Which means if you thought nuclear is a good idea, then overbuilding solar still saves you money.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". The cost of storage isn't just the conversion losses. You also need the storage hardware, and for it to have enough capacity for an extended period of low generation. Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? No one seems to be able to answer this, and the closest I've seen is something like "keep all of the existing natural gas plants operational and use them to burn hydrogen instead, but only when renewable generation is low." Which is just preposterously expensive -- you'd have to maintain an entire redundant set of generating plants that you hardly ever use and that themselves cost almost as much as nuclear power plants do. But that is still less expensive than trying to build a week's worth of storage capacity using something like lithium batteries. And both of them have the problem that you have to choose in advance how much storage capacity to build, but if you build too much you've doubled your costs and if you build too little then people freeze to death.

Kon5ole 3y ago
>The cost of storage isn't just the conversion losses. You also need the storage hardware That is also included in the estimates of course and solar+storage is still cheaper. Solar is so cheap that individuals are themselves paying to get it on the roofs of their homes and get returns from the investments inside a quarter of the life expectancy of the panels despite being taxed on everything involved, sometimes even the production of electricity. Small communities have made off-grid hydrogen fuel stations, including electrolyzers and storage. It's so cheap that basically anyone can do it. Certainly any corporation that is making money can do it, and will do it, as soon as they realize it's cheaper than grid-electricity. >"keep all of the existing natural gas plants operational and use them to burn hydrogen instead, but only when renewable generation is low." Which is just preposterously expensive Any gas plant still being operational would be running all the time and be part of the base supply just like it is today. You would mix hydrogen in with the natural gas gradually as production capacity is increased, so for the first 100s of TWh you wouldn't even need to invest in anything but hydrogen production. Compared to replacing the same amount of energy with nuclear it will be very cheap, maybe orders of magnitude cheaper. Ironically that's also the main problem I see with it - there are many large power plant investments already made that will become unprofitable if solar+storage starts dictating the price of electricity, not just nuclear. There are many laws in many countries that only exist to make it hard for private actors to produce their own electricity.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > That is also included in the estimates of course and solar+storage is still cheaper. I don't believe that it is. > Solar is so cheap that individuals are themselves paying to get it on the roofs of their homes and get returns from the investments inside a quarter of the life expectancy of the panels despite being taxed on everything involved, sometimes even the production of electricity. Because they have free land (existing empty roof) and are using grid power from nuclear and fossil fuels whenever the sun isn't shining. Everybody knows solar is cheaper during the day, the question is how do you heat your house at night. > Small communities have made off-grid hydrogen fuel stations, including electrolyzers and storage. It's so cheap that basically anyone can do it. It's cheap in the sense that you can build one at small scale. How much is it to build 500GW worth of capacity and then store enough hydrogen to run it for ten days straight? > Any gas plant still being operational would be running all the time and be part of the base supply just like it is today. Not if its purpose is to supply power during periods of low generation. Suppose you have a bunch of wind turbines that on average generate 500 GW of power. Sometimes it's 950 GW, sometimes it's 50 GW. Then you have 500 GW of average demand. When they generate in excess of demand you want to use the excess to produce hydrogen. Okay, fine, but that's about half the time, so already your combustion-based power plants are operating at most at half duty cycle. But the renewable output is more of a bell curve. The midpoint is 500GW but 450GW or 550GW are way more common than 950GW or 50GW. The problem is you still need enough generating capacity for when it's 50GW. You have to maintain 450GW of alternate capacity even though you don't need the majority of it except for on rare occasions. > You would mix hydrogen in with the natural gas gradually as production capacity is increased, so for the first 100s of TWh you wouldn't even need to invest in anything but hydrogen production. Constructing the existing plants is a sunk cost but that doesn't mean it wasn't a cost. You still have to maintain them and build new ones as they age out, you can't recover the cost of the land by selling it. And you could get a similar efficiency by converting the existing sites to nuclear, reusing the land and steam-to-power generating equipment and grid connection. But then you get power ~100% of the time because the fuel cost is negligible. > Ironically that's also the main problem I see with it - there are many large power plant investments already made that will become unprofitable if solar+storage starts dictating the price of electricity, not just nuclear. There are many laws in many countries that only exist to make it hard for private actors to produce their own electricity. The real problem here is that if you did a straight free market design, the result would be that power is very cheap 95% of the time and then costs multiple dollars per kWh during extended periods of low generation. That would allow long-term storage technologies and reliable generation methods to recover their costs from the times they're most needed, and use pricing to suppress demand when supply is low. But then instead of having a $100/month electric bill, people would pay $20/month eleven months out of the year and then the month when there isn't enough capacity it would be $1000, unless they can severely limit their use during that time, which generally means something like turning down their thermostat in the winter. Which, of course, people hate. The alternative is to have the power company smooth it out, so you always pay $100/month and they take the extra $80 most months to build nuclear reactors that can supply reliable power. In the end it comes out about the same but then people don't get a huge surprise bill once in a while.
dale_glass 3y ago
> Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies, and interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. If say, Washington is suddenly devoid of sun and wind, there's a lot of places around it could buy power from. And be the seller when the reverse happens.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. > interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? The generators in another party of the country still have to satisfy the same load they normally do. And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. And the reverse when there isn't enough generation for the air conditioning load in the south in the summer. To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for, specifically to satisfy the demand in another part of the country on rare occasions, and build and maintain thousands of miles of HVDC lines that are hardly ever used. With enough redundancy that you don't shut off power to half the country if a truck veers off the highway and crashes into one. This is supposed to be the cheapest option?
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    > This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. Not all of them. A small fraction. > Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? From other regions with different weather patterns. > And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. Exactly, you build in each place what it's best suited for. > If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. So you pull from the rest of the country as well. That's what a national grid is for. Every place ends up with some capacity to overproduce, so when a given region has 50% of what it needs, it pulls 10% from 5 places each. > To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for Why opposite? > This is supposed to be the cheapest option? Sure. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear. So overbuilding solar and wind is still cost competitive. At this point solar is less than half the price of nuclear. Which means if you thought nuclear is a good idea, then overbuilding solar still saves you money.