3 ms·

The suggestion is that electricity from PV could be so cheap that generating fuels with electricity could be cheaper, even with the massive inefficiency of it.

The suggestion is that electricity from PV could be so cheap that generating fuels with electricity could be cheaper, even with the massive inefficiency of it. It won't be hydrogen, because hydrogen is volumetrically not dense enough, it would likely be something like methanol or methane or maybe, with the right tech breakthrough, longer chains of carbon. You definitely don't want a nuclear plant generating this, because nuclear is way too expensive. Today, right now, solar energy stored in batteries is cheaper than new nuclear. And every year that price falls further. And most of the energy would never even have to be stored in batteries, and PV is cheaper than operating already-paid-for natural gas generators in most markets right now, (and getting cheaper). The energy world is being disrupted, but the incumbents aren't paying attention, and most of the US media is devoted to covering it up and discrediting cheaper energy, to benefit incumbent fossil fuel energy companies, the ones buying lots of advertisements.

pfdietz 3y ago
Carbon-containing fuels have the problem of either requiring CO2 to be retained on the ship for regeneration, or capture of CO2 from air to close the cycle. I wonder if metal e-fuels like, say, magnesium could be used. These might be more compatible with direct conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy. Oxidized magnesium could be directly released into the ocean to help reduce its pH. More aggressively: sodium?
vlovich123 3y ago
> Today, right now, solar energy stored in batteries is cheaper than new nuclear. And every year that price falls further. Can you provide links to data supporting this? Everything I’ve read is that major solar installations that don’t have the perfect conditions are still often more expensive than nuclear. No solar installation is cheaper than nuclear once you start factoring in batteries for many reasons (one is that large scale battery installations are still expensive and the other is that you have to charge the battery which means a non trivial part of your solar/wind capacity is going to charge the batteries)
- pfdietz 3y ago
  He probably means solar + four hours of batteries at the field's rated peak power (which is typically what's going in these days, I think.) This doesn't mean a drop-in 365/24/7 replacement for nuclear, but it's enough (if widely installed) to render nuclear irrelevant, as no one will want to build a new nuclear power plant if the grid is saturated with such solar plants -- nuclear will be utterly unsuitable for the wildly unsteady residual demand. Battery price declines have accelerated recently, as usual driven by China. Last year LFP cells in China were going for $125/kWh; this year they could be going for as little as $60/kWh, with some predictions as low as $45/kWh. https://cnevpost.com/2024/01/17/battery-price-war-catl-byd-costs-down/ https://cnevpost.com/2024/01/17/battery-price-war-catl-byd-c...
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    > nuclear will be utterly unsuitable for the wildly unsteady residual demand. What’s the planned energy source that will be handling that unsteady residual demand? Sounds like in most cases that would mean there’s a blackout or fossil fuels no? Also I think it’s telling that China, the center of PV and battery manufacturing is investing heavily in nuclear tech. The costs of nuclear are disproportionately high vs where they should be and they’ve already started building meltdown-proof gen iv reactors while we’re docking around with smr.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Combustion of e-fuels would do, and likely at much lower cost than nuclear. China's nuclear investments are pulling up short compared to their renewable investments. They too are evidence renewables are beating nuclear. It's going to be clear very soon even to the most recalcitrant nuclear fans that their technology is doomed.
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        > China's nuclear investments are pulling up short compared to their renewable investments. They too are evidence renewables are beating nuclear. Source for this claim?

pfdietz 3y ago

Carbon-containing fuels have the problem of either requiring CO2 to be retained on the ship for regeneration, or capture of CO2 from air to close the cycle. I wonder if metal e-fuels like, say, magnesium could be used. These might be more compatible with direct conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy. Oxidized magnesium could be directly released into the ocean to help reduce its pH. More aggressively: sodium?

vlovich123 3y ago

> Today, right now, solar energy stored in batteries is cheaper than new nuclear. And every year that price falls further. Can you provide links to data supporting this? Everything I’ve read is that major solar installations that don’t have the perfect conditions are still often more expensive than nuclear. No solar installation is cheaper than nuclear once you start factoring in batteries for many reasons (one is that large scale battery installations are still expensive and the other is that you have to charge the battery which means a non trivial part of your solar/wind capacity is going to charge the batteries)

pfdietz 3y ago
He probably means solar + four hours of batteries at the field's rated peak power (which is typically what's going in these days, I think.) This doesn't mean a drop-in 365/24/7 replacement for nuclear, but it's enough (if widely installed) to render nuclear irrelevant, as no one will want to build a new nuclear power plant if the grid is saturated with such solar plants -- nuclear will be utterly unsuitable for the wildly unsteady residual demand. Battery price declines have accelerated recently, as usual driven by China. Last year LFP cells in China were going for $125/kWh; this year they could be going for as little as $60/kWh, with some predictions as low as $45/kWh. https://cnevpost.com/2024/01/17/battery-price-war-catl-byd-costs-down/ https://cnevpost.com/2024/01/17/battery-price-war-catl-byd-c...
- vlovich123 3y ago
  > nuclear will be utterly unsuitable for the wildly unsteady residual demand. What’s the planned energy source that will be handling that unsteady residual demand? Sounds like in most cases that would mean there’s a blackout or fossil fuels no? Also I think it’s telling that China, the center of PV and battery manufacturing is investing heavily in nuclear tech. The costs of nuclear are disproportionately high vs where they should be and they’ve already started building meltdown-proof gen iv reactors while we’re docking around with smr.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Combustion of e-fuels would do, and likely at much lower cost than nuclear. China's nuclear investments are pulling up short compared to their renewable investments. They too are evidence renewables are beating nuclear. It's going to be clear very soon even to the most recalcitrant nuclear fans that their technology is doomed.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      > China's nuclear investments are pulling up short compared to their renewable investments. They too are evidence renewables are beating nuclear. Source for this claim?