5 ms·

There’s clearly some value to consistent power sources producing clean energy but if SMRs are in the $0.15/kwh wholesale range, they’re DOA. Solar+battery gets

There’s clearly some value to consistent power sources producing clean energy but if SMRs are in the $0.15/kwh wholesale range, they’re DOA. Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day, and there’s almost zero project risk. If the install is small enough, you could likely beat the realistic costs for SMRs with solar + battery + diesel generators if you need a guarantee of 100% uptime.

throw0101c 2y ago
> Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day, and there’s almost zero project risk. Debatable. In Ontario nuclear costs 10¢/kWh while wind costs 15¢ and solar 50¢ (Table 2): * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20221021.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2022... And when wind goes to zero at night, then (natural/methane) gas generators are often spun up (generating carbon emissions). Meanwhile the refurbishments of Ontario's nuclear plants are on-budget, and often ahead of schedule: * https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/infrastructure/2023/07/unit-3-at-darlington-nuclear-completed-ahead-of-schedule https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/infrastructure/...
- chickenbig 2y ago
  Ontario gives hope to the nuclear dreams. Being able to deliver projects on-budget gives decision-makers cause to believe project plans. Lets hope that another 4-pack of CANDU reactors will be built, to further the soverign industry.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Existing nuclear, in Canada, is basically the best case scenario for nuclear Vs the worst case scenario for solar and batteries. It's not globally representative though.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    And this very article is about how SMRs by their nature are going to be more expensive than traditional nuclear so seems pretty silly to make any comparison to the costs of production for reactors that were built 40 years ago. A better comparison would be how much are we expecting wholesale costs for Hinkley’s new reactor to be? Don’t want to ruin the surprise but people will be shocked if they look up what they’re charging in a sub-$0.10/kwh world.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Most of Europe is more northern than the inhabited places of Canada[1], so it's far from insignificant either. [1] Yes, really: the populated places of Canada are comparable to northern Italy in terms of latitude. The Gulf Stream really does an unbelievable job hiding that fact.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Canada plus all of Europe is only 1 in 10 people. Global problems need global solutions and most people are not in nations near the poles with decades old nuclear plants they can coast on. They need to build new energy plants, and live in areas where solar plus battery beat nuclear on multiple dimensions. That's why every prediction has solar accelerating past nuclear deployment and heading for multiples of nuclear output.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        And, in doing so, propelling both solar and batteries further down their well-demonstrated experience curves. Given this, it's very late in the day for nuclear. The competition is pulling away.
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        > Canada plus all of Europe is only 1 in 10 people. A bit less actually. But you cannot dismiss a technology that works for 10% of people. And we still weight more than this in terms of CO2. > Global problems need global solutions No, global problems need custom solutions suited to all the different situations. Thinking there exist one technology to rule them all that will solve the problem everywhere is not helpful to anyone. > That's why every prediction has solar accelerating past nuclear deployment and heading for multiples of nuclear output. This isn't a race! Stop thinking of technologies as if it was sport teams.
        ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        I'm not dismissing a tech that might help in a few cases, I'm responding to someone dismissing a tech that will help in the vast majority of cases: > > Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day, and there’s almost zero project risk. > Debatable. In Ontario nuclear costs 10¢/kWh while wind costs 15¢ and solar 50¢ (Table 2):
- pfdietz 2y ago
  That enormous solar price is obtained by a not very well described adjustment procedure for variance in supply. It is not the usually described levelized cost of energy (LCoE). The adjustment would depend on system design, and should be much lower than that in a cost optimized renewable system. If I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and ask it to solve for a cost optimized renewable + storage system for Ontario, I get a cost out of 55 Euro/MWh for providing synthetic baseload (2030 cost assumptions). That solution doesn't include using hydro to deal with variance in supply and demand; Canada has large amounts of hydro.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > That enormous solar price is obtained by a not very well described adjustment procedure for variance in supply. Well, the price is irrelevant when solar supply (and wind supply) goes to zero: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply > […] Canada has large amounts of hydro. Some parts of Canada have large amounts of hydro. Others do not. I'd rather use hydro to reduce/eliminate gas plants: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply Looking at the variability of renewables, I do not wish for the grid in Ontario (where I live) to be more dependent on them.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The model at the site I linked uses real historical weather data, so it takes into account "supply going to zero". Renewables still win and come in much cheaper than $0.50/kWh.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lugu 2y ago
Solar + battery: will there be enough raw material available to make it a viable alternative at world scale? I am hearing that we won't be able to extract enough metals for a world transition based on renewables. Cost is secondary when physics gets in your way.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The batteries would not be Li-ion NMC cells, but more likely Li-ion LFP cells. The latter use iron and phosphate, both of which are available in very large amounts. Availability of other chemistries (like Na-ion) would only ease any constraints. Batteries would best be used for diurnal leveling; don't overestimate demand by assuming they are used for (say) seasonal leveling. The batteries used by electrified motor vehicles would exceed those needed for the grid.
littlestymaar 2y ago
> Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day Solar + battery cannot be sufficient for most Europe except Mediterranean countries, it's not a matter of cost, there's just not enough sun in Winter and you need months of electricity worth of storage which isn't happening in our lifetime. In general, talking about energy price ($/kWh) only make sense when you have fossil fuel as a near majority of your mix (because you have practically unlimited power as long as you spend money on fuel), but cease to make sense without it, because nobody cares about energy (Wh), what you (and the grid) need is power (W). With either nuclear or renewable, energy is practically free, but power is what costs money, and as we move towards a decarbonized mix, we'll need to change how the economics work to adapt to the underlying changes (including how we price electricity to consumers and businesses), because when you don't align the economics with the how the supply works the system collapses (like it did in Texas as few winters ago).
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Europe would use hydrogen for seasonal leveling, not batteries. Vastly superior, even with the much lower round trip efficiency. Europe has petawatt-hours of hydrogen storage capacity in salt formations.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    In science fiction books, yes. But in the real world Germany has spent hundreds of billions over a decade in renewables while phasing out nuclear, and yet they are still very far from full renewable (they haven't even over the “easy” phase of the transition)
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Ah, so "it hasn't been done yet, therefore it can't be done" is a valid argument? We might as well stop talking about SMRs then. Germany has not tried to roll out hydrogen yet. CO2 charges are not yet at the point where natural gas must stop being used for long period leveling. Also, a big part of Germany's large expenditure was in 2009-2012 when solar (in particular) was far more expensive. Funny how you didn't mention that, isn't it.
itsoktocry 2y ago
>Solar+battery gets you there today Are you extrapolating rooftop solar rates in California to a large, industrial solar installation in Canada, or where do these figures come from?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Large, utility-scale solar is much cheaper than California rooftop solar. That California has so much rooftop solar is problematic; it's a symptom of market distortion.

throw0101c 2y ago

> Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day, and there’s almost zero project risk. Debatable. In Ontario nuclear costs 10¢/kWh while wind costs 15¢ and solar 50¢ (Table 2): * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20221021.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2022... And when wind goes to zero at night, then (natural/methane) gas generators are often spun up (generating carbon emissions). Meanwhile the refurbishments of Ontario's nuclear plants are on-budget, and often ahead of schedule: * https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/infrastructure/2023/07/unit-3-at-darlington-nuclear-completed-ahead-of-schedule https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/infrastructure/...

chickenbig 2y ago
Ontario gives hope to the nuclear dreams. Being able to deliver projects on-budget gives decision-makers cause to believe project plans. Lets hope that another 4-pack of CANDU reactors will be built, to further the soverign industry.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Existing nuclear, in Canada, is basically the best case scenario for nuclear Vs the worst case scenario for solar and batteries. It's not globally representative though.
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  And this very article is about how SMRs by their nature are going to be more expensive than traditional nuclear so seems pretty silly to make any comparison to the costs of production for reactors that were built 40 years ago. A better comparison would be how much are we expecting wholesale costs for Hinkley’s new reactor to be? Don’t want to ruin the surprise but people will be shocked if they look up what they’re charging in a sub-$0.10/kwh world.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Most of Europe is more northern than the inhabited places of Canada[1], so it's far from insignificant either. [1] Yes, really: the populated places of Canada are comparable to northern Italy in terms of latitude. The Gulf Stream really does an unbelievable job hiding that fact.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Canada plus all of Europe is only 1 in 10 people. Global problems need global solutions and most people are not in nations near the poles with decades old nuclear plants they can coast on. They need to build new energy plants, and live in areas where solar plus battery beat nuclear on multiple dimensions. That's why every prediction has solar accelerating past nuclear deployment and heading for multiples of nuclear output.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      And, in doing so, propelling both solar and batteries further down their well-demonstrated experience curves. Given this, it's very late in the day for nuclear. The competition is pulling away.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > Canada plus all of Europe is only 1 in 10 people. A bit less actually. But you cannot dismiss a technology that works for 10% of people. And we still weight more than this in terms of CO2. > Global problems need global solutions No, global problems need custom solutions suited to all the different situations. Thinking there exist one technology to rule them all that will solve the problem everywhere is not helpful to anyone. > That's why every prediction has solar accelerating past nuclear deployment and heading for multiples of nuclear output. This isn't a race! Stop thinking of technologies as if it was sport teams.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        I'm not dismissing a tech that might help in a few cases, I'm responding to someone dismissing a tech that will help in the vast majority of cases: > > Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day, and there’s almost zero project risk. > Debatable. In Ontario nuclear costs 10¢/kWh while wind costs 15¢ and solar 50¢ (Table 2):
pfdietz 2y ago
That enormous solar price is obtained by a not very well described adjustment procedure for variance in supply. It is not the usually described levelized cost of energy (LCoE). The adjustment would depend on system design, and should be much lower than that in a cost optimized renewable system. If I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and ask it to solve for a cost optimized renewable + storage system for Ontario, I get a cost out of 55 Euro/MWh for providing synthetic baseload (2030 cost assumptions). That solution doesn't include using hydro to deal with variance in supply and demand; Canada has large amounts of hydro.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > That enormous solar price is obtained by a not very well described adjustment procedure for variance in supply. Well, the price is irrelevant when solar supply (and wind supply) goes to zero: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply > […] Canada has large amounts of hydro. Some parts of Canada have large amounts of hydro. Others do not. I'd rather use hydro to reduce/eliminate gas plants: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply Looking at the variability of renewables, I do not wish for the grid in Ontario (where I live) to be more dependent on them.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The model at the site I linked uses real historical weather data, so it takes into account "supply going to zero". Renewables still win and come in much cheaper than $0.50/kWh.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lugu 2y ago

Solar + battery: will there be enough raw material available to make it a viable alternative at world scale? I am hearing that we won't be able to extract enough metals for a world transition based on renewables. Cost is secondary when physics gets in your way.

pfdietz 2y ago
The batteries would not be Li-ion NMC cells, but more likely Li-ion LFP cells. The latter use iron and phosphate, both of which are available in very large amounts. Availability of other chemistries (like Na-ion) would only ease any constraints. Batteries would best be used for diurnal leveling; don't overestimate demand by assuming they are used for (say) seasonal leveling. The batteries used by electrified motor vehicles would exceed those needed for the grid.

littlestymaar 2y ago

> Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day Solar + battery cannot be sufficient for most Europe except Mediterranean countries, it's not a matter of cost, there's just not enough sun in Winter and you need months of electricity worth of storage which isn't happening in our lifetime. In general, talking about energy price ($/kWh) only make sense when you have fossil fuel as a near majority of your mix (because you have practically unlimited power as long as you spend money on fuel), but cease to make sense without it, because nobody cares about energy (Wh), what you (and the grid) need is power (W). With either nuclear or renewable, energy is practically free, but power is what costs money, and as we move towards a decarbonized mix, we'll need to change how the economics work to adapt to the underlying changes (including how we price electricity to consumers and businesses), because when you don't align the economics with the how the supply works the system collapses (like it did in Texas as few winters ago).

pfdietz 2y ago
Europe would use hydrogen for seasonal leveling, not batteries. Vastly superior, even with the much lower round trip efficiency. Europe has petawatt-hours of hydrogen storage capacity in salt formations.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  In science fiction books, yes. But in the real world Germany has spent hundreds of billions over a decade in renewables while phasing out nuclear, and yet they are still very far from full renewable (they haven't even over the “easy” phase of the transition)
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Ah, so "it hasn't been done yet, therefore it can't be done" is a valid argument? We might as well stop talking about SMRs then. Germany has not tried to roll out hydrogen yet. CO2 charges are not yet at the point where natural gas must stop being used for long period leveling. Also, a big part of Germany's large expenditure was in 2009-2012 when solar (in particular) was far more expensive. Funny how you didn't mention that, isn't it.

itsoktocry 2y ago

>Solar+battery gets you there today Are you extrapolating rooftop solar rates in California to a large, industrial solar installation in Canada, or where do these figures come from?

pfdietz 2y ago
Large, utility-scale solar is much cheaper than California rooftop solar. That California has so much rooftop solar is problematic; it's a symptom of market distortion.