4 ms·

> Solar+battery gets you there today, is getting cheaper every day Solar + battery cannot be sufficient for most Europe except Mediterranean countries, it's no

> 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.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > Germany has not tried to roll out hydrogen yet And for good reason… > CO2 charges are not yet at the point where natural gas must stop being used for long period leveling. During that period, Germany has emitted more CO2 than hundreds of millions of peoole, and we're way past the moment where we should have stopped using coal and gas really. > 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. And why hasn't Germany completed the transition now that “solar is dirt cheap” for years now, then? Solar makes no sense in Europe, period. Wind, hydro and nuclear, yes, but every solar panel installed in non-mediteranean European country has been a tragic waste of taxpayer's money (giving the panels to Greece or Arab/African countries would have been a much better investment, by an order of magnitude)
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Germany's problem is they are hopelessly tied to fossil fuels. Any replacement (nuclear or renewable) would crater their heavy industry. Northern Europe is not a place for heavy industry in a post-fossil fuel world economy; they are at a grave disadvantage compared to sunnier locations closer to the equator.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        That's why nuclear is interesting there. Unless you're asking Europe to just accept being phased out of industrial economy without doing anything to avoid that…
        pfdietz 2y ago
        The point I was making was that nuclear doesn't help. Germany is dependent on fossil fuels, and nuclear is not a drop-in, equal cost replacement for fossil fuels. For Germany to be saved from this fate by nuclear, nuclear has to be as cheap as solar is in the best locations in the world, not just better than solar in Germany. Germany (and Europe) should probably be putting more money into CO2 sequestration, so they can keep burning fossil fuels.

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.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > Germany has not tried to roll out hydrogen yet And for good reason… > CO2 charges are not yet at the point where natural gas must stop being used for long period leveling. During that period, Germany has emitted more CO2 than hundreds of millions of peoole, and we're way past the moment where we should have stopped using coal and gas really. > 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. And why hasn't Germany completed the transition now that “solar is dirt cheap” for years now, then? Solar makes no sense in Europe, period. Wind, hydro and nuclear, yes, but every solar panel installed in non-mediteranean European country has been a tragic waste of taxpayer's money (giving the panels to Greece or Arab/African countries would have been a much better investment, by an order of magnitude)
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Germany's problem is they are hopelessly tied to fossil fuels. Any replacement (nuclear or renewable) would crater their heavy industry. Northern Europe is not a place for heavy industry in a post-fossil fuel world economy; they are at a grave disadvantage compared to sunnier locations closer to the equator.
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        That's why nuclear is interesting there. Unless you're asking Europe to just accept being phased out of industrial economy without doing anything to avoid that…
        pfdietz 2y ago
        The point I was making was that nuclear doesn't help. Germany is dependent on fossil fuels, and nuclear is not a drop-in, equal cost replacement for fossil fuels. For Germany to be saved from this fate by nuclear, nuclear has to be as cheap as solar is in the best locations in the world, not just better than solar in Germany. Germany (and Europe) should probably be putting more money into CO2 sequestration, so they can keep burning fossil fuels.