4 ms·

I want to make clear that I am not arguing against solar. My belief is that nuclear is an important piece of a much larger puzzle. Wind is not reliable, and for

I want to make clear that I am not arguing against solar. My belief is that nuclear is an important piece of a much larger puzzle. Wind is not reliable, and for solar to match the figures you provided, we would need to figure out storage, so lets diversify our portfolio :)

tzs 3y ago
> Wind is not reliable Surface wind is not reliable. I've seen proposals to put turbines on large kites or gliders tethered to the ground. There's pretty much always strong winds over most of the United States somewhere between the surface and 10000 feet.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Hmm what to do with the torque from the windmill though. Perhaps it could have counter rotating propellers to cancel it out. Otherwise it would entangle itself in the anchoring cable. Also, a failure scenario would mean tonnes of windmill crashing down from high altitude. Hmmmmm
  - tzs 3y ago
    > Also, a failure scenario would mean tonnes of windmill crashing down from high altitude. Hmmmm 10000 feet is less than 2 miles. Even in high winds it wouldn't get more than a a couple or miles or so before hitting the ground. There are plenty of places in the US where you could fly where it would be centered over a 6 mile diameter circle that contains no people or valuable buildings except for people and buildings that are part of the power facility.
jodrellblank 3y ago
Figuring out storage is hard if you think in terms of Lithium Ion grid-scale batteries, or mountains for pumped hydro, but[1] puts forward the idea of synthetic natural gas generated by solar panels. That can be pumped into existing national gas grids, existing gas storage, and sent into existing gas power stations to generate power in quiet times. The article says that solar power has dropped from $100/Watt in 1976 to $0.50/Watt by 2016, and that instead of slowing down as the low hanging fruit has been picked, that process is speeding up since 2011 when Solar started to become cheaper than other forms of power generation, which changed the feedback loops and is bringing in much more demand which brings more investment, research and production, than before when it was an expensive little-used alternative. This is a linked graph of solar growth compared to International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook predictions: https://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IEA-Solar-Growth-Forecasts-vs-Reality-Simon-Evans-Carbon-Brief.jpg https://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IEA-Solar-G... In each of 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, the IEA predicted deployment of solar would stop accelerating (line going up) and steady off into consistant growth (flatline on that graph). Every year they have been very quickly wrong, and the 2019 predition of flatline is so wrong that by 2021 actual production of 190GW was WAYYYY off the top of that chart. At this rate we may not need to figure out storage nearly as much as we think. > "What people have missed is that reaching cost parity on fuel synthesis will unlock huge new demand centers [and trigger an acceleration in demand/investment/research/cost decline of solar created synthetic fuels]." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32197012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32197012 (article rather than comments)
- Gare 3y ago
  Sure, if it pans out. I'm all for syngas if it can be produced somewhat efficiently at scale. But right now lithium batteries and hydro are proven technologies that can be utilized. That's the difference.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    If the story I link below is real, synthetic propane could become the standard for energy storage. Extremely efficient production from electricity and direct fuel cells convert it back even more efficiently. Hank Hill would be so proud. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218727
datameta 3y ago
Compression of air in underground cavities > Hydrostor, which is based in Toronto, is one of several startups working on fixing those problems. The company says it’s figured out a way to capture and reuse the heat generated when air is compressed, eliminating the need to burn gas. It’s also figured out a way to make the mechanics work in areas where caverns must be dug out of hard rock, rather than salt. < https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-01-12/this-giant-underground-battery-is-a-1-billion-clean-energy-solution-boiling-point https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-01-12/th...
zo1 3y ago
The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to get of the opinion that this entire call or worry about "storage" when it comes to solar is a giant distraction. This first thing we need to do is align the costs and incentives. What I mean by that is simply allow the market, or government, to dictate the real cost of providing electricity at night. If there are no solar panels (nighttime), and whatever grid-scale batteries are available cost 1$/kwh then so be it, charge that amount to the consumer. People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away. As a side-effect of this whole "switching off the endless tap", micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation.
- Gare 3y ago
  Well, for one I (and I presume many other people) would not vote for a platform with such an extremist position.
  - chihuahua 3y ago
    Yes, imagine there was a governor whose position is "at night, everyone will be limited to no more than 100W." The best-case scenario for the governor would be that they're recalled quickly.
    - zo1 3y ago
      It would be more like "at night (or when there is little solar), you pay progressively more for your electricity." A lot of places do that already, you just do it to a slightly-palatable level instead of to the true cost. Partly because of, as you guys point out it's politically nonviable, but also partly because it's electricity from cheap coal as opposed to green solar + super expensive batteries.
- smegger001 3y ago
  "People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away." I take it you live somewhere warm in the winter. We are already looking at removing other heating options like propane and natural gas furnaces, coal and oil heating is mostly phased out, and burning wood isn't great for the environment either. So electrical heating is necessary anywhere where its normal to freeze for several months. Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit. "micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation." Why don't you ask Texas residents how not being part of the national synchronized grid worked out for them 2 years ago?
danans 3y ago
> Wind is not reliable I think what you mean is that wind alone is not baseload, not that it is unreliable. It is quite reliable in that its availability is predictable such that it can be coordinated with storage to create virtual baseload. Therefore its failure modes are relatively mild in impact. In contrast, large centralized plants (whether combustion or nuclear) have far more consequential failure modes - for example, losing 1GW of power with little notice, as can happen with these plants, is usually a grid emergency event.
_ph_ 3y ago
Nuclear would be the worst technology for filling temporary gaps in the production of renewables. The ramping speed of nuclear reactors is limited, and they cannot be throttled below 40% output without shutting them down entirely for quite some time. On top of that, the main expense of nuclear reactors is building and maintaining them, so throttling a reactor is not reducing the costs. You really want to run a nuclear reactor with a high load.
- champtar 3y ago
  French NPP can vary their power output 80% up or down in 30 min (https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_pilotable_d%27%C3%A9lectricit%C3%A9 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_pilotable_d%27%C3...)
  - _ph_ 3y ago
    Fine, than they can go a bit lower still. But for a grid mainly powered by renewables, they would have to be able to go all the way down to 0, what is really not a practical option for nuclear reactors. But there is another catch: nuclear is extremely expensive, even when run most of the time close to 100%. But any time you throttle the reactor, you are driving the costs up. Because most of the costs are in building and operating the reactor, less so in fuel.

tzs 3y ago

> Wind is not reliable Surface wind is not reliable. I've seen proposals to put turbines on large kites or gliders tethered to the ground. There's pretty much always strong winds over most of the United States somewhere between the surface and 10000 feet.

wkat4242 3y ago
Hmm what to do with the torque from the windmill though. Perhaps it could have counter rotating propellers to cancel it out. Otherwise it would entangle itself in the anchoring cable. Also, a failure scenario would mean tonnes of windmill crashing down from high altitude. Hmmmmm
- tzs 3y ago
  > Also, a failure scenario would mean tonnes of windmill crashing down from high altitude. Hmmmm 10000 feet is less than 2 miles. Even in high winds it wouldn't get more than a a couple or miles or so before hitting the ground. There are plenty of places in the US where you could fly where it would be centered over a 6 mile diameter circle that contains no people or valuable buildings except for people and buildings that are part of the power facility.

jodrellblank 3y ago

Figuring out storage is hard if you think in terms of Lithium Ion grid-scale batteries, or mountains for pumped hydro, but[1] puts forward the idea of synthetic natural gas generated by solar panels. That can be pumped into existing national gas grids, existing gas storage, and sent into existing gas power stations to generate power in quiet times. The article says that solar power has dropped from $100/Watt in 1976 to $0.50/Watt by 2016, and that instead of slowing down as the low hanging fruit has been picked, that process is speeding up since 2011 when Solar started to become cheaper than other forms of power generation, which changed the feedback loops and is bringing in much more demand which brings more investment, research and production, than before when it was an expensive little-used alternative. This is a linked graph of solar growth compared to International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook predictions: https://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IEA-Solar-Growth-Forecasts-vs-Reality-Simon-Evans-Carbon-Brief.jpg https://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IEA-Solar-G... In each of 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, the IEA predicted deployment of solar would stop accelerating (line going up) and steady off into consistant growth (flatline on that graph). Every year they have been very quickly wrong, and the 2019 predition of flatline is so wrong that by 2021 actual production of 190GW was WAYYYY off the top of that chart. At this rate we may not need to figure out storage nearly as much as we think. > "What people have missed is that reaching cost parity on fuel synthesis will unlock huge new demand centers [and trigger an acceleration in demand/investment/research/cost decline of solar created synthetic fuels]." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32197012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32197012 (article rather than comments)

Gare 3y ago
Sure, if it pans out. I'm all for syngas if it can be produced somewhat efficiently at scale. But right now lithium batteries and hydro are proven technologies that can be utilized. That's the difference.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  If the story I link below is real, synthetic propane could become the standard for energy storage. Extremely efficient production from electricity and direct fuel cells convert it back even more efficiently. Hank Hill would be so proud. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218727

datameta 3y ago

Compression of air in underground cavities > Hydrostor, which is based in Toronto, is one of several startups working on fixing those problems. The company says it’s figured out a way to capture and reuse the heat generated when air is compressed, eliminating the need to burn gas. It’s also figured out a way to make the mechanics work in areas where caverns must be dug out of hard rock, rather than salt. < https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-01-12/this-giant-underground-battery-is-a-1-billion-clean-energy-solution-boiling-point https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-01-12/th...

zo1 3y ago

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to get of the opinion that this entire call or worry about "storage" when it comes to solar is a giant distraction. This first thing we need to do is align the costs and incentives. What I mean by that is simply allow the market, or government, to dictate the real cost of providing electricity at night. If there are no solar panels (nighttime), and whatever grid-scale batteries are available cost 1$/kwh then so be it, charge that amount to the consumer. People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away. As a side-effect of this whole "switching off the endless tap", micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation.

Gare 3y ago
Well, for one I (and I presume many other people) would not vote for a platform with such an extremist position.
- chihuahua 3y ago
  Yes, imagine there was a governor whose position is "at night, everyone will be limited to no more than 100W." The best-case scenario for the governor would be that they're recalled quickly.
  - zo1 3y ago
    It would be more like "at night (or when there is little solar), you pay progressively more for your electricity." A lot of places do that already, you just do it to a slightly-palatable level instead of to the true cost. Partly because of, as you guys point out it's politically nonviable, but also partly because it's electricity from cheap coal as opposed to green solar + super expensive batteries.
smegger001 3y ago
"People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away." I take it you live somewhere warm in the winter. We are already looking at removing other heating options like propane and natural gas furnaces, coal and oil heating is mostly phased out, and burning wood isn't great for the environment either. So electrical heating is necessary anywhere where its normal to freeze for several months. Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit. "micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation." Why don't you ask Texas residents how not being part of the national synchronized grid worked out for them 2 years ago?

danans 3y ago

> Wind is not reliable I think what you mean is that wind alone is not baseload, not that it is unreliable. It is quite reliable in that its availability is predictable such that it can be coordinated with storage to create virtual baseload. Therefore its failure modes are relatively mild in impact. In contrast, large centralized plants (whether combustion or nuclear) have far more consequential failure modes - for example, losing 1GW of power with little notice, as can happen with these plants, is usually a grid emergency event.

_ph_ 3y ago

Nuclear would be the worst technology for filling temporary gaps in the production of renewables. The ramping speed of nuclear reactors is limited, and they cannot be throttled below 40% output without shutting them down entirely for quite some time. On top of that, the main expense of nuclear reactors is building and maintaining them, so throttling a reactor is not reducing the costs. You really want to run a nuclear reactor with a high load.

champtar 3y ago
French NPP can vary their power output 80% up or down in 30 min (https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_pilotable_d%27%C3%A9lectricit%C3%A9 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_pilotable_d%27%C3...)
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Fine, than they can go a bit lower still. But for a grid mainly powered by renewables, they would have to be able to go all the way down to 0, what is really not a practical option for nuclear reactors. But there is another catch: nuclear is extremely expensive, even when run most of the time close to 100%. But any time you throttle the reactor, you are driving the costs up. Because most of the costs are in building and operating the reactor, less so in fuel.