3 ms·

> As I already told you, that's not pumped hydro. Yes, you made that claim. However, it's not true. The page is about all hydro in Germany. https://www.umwe

> As I already told you, that's not pumped hydro. Yes, you made that claim. However, it's not true. The page is about all hydro in Germany. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerbare-energien/nutzung-der-wasserkraft https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerb... You also need geography for pumped hydro. Somewhere to pump the water to. > Battery storage is approaching $100/kWh "Approaching". A Tesla Megapack is more than 3x that. It's funny how EE fanboys just extrapolate trends into the future. At the rate nuclear power plants were getting cheaper they'd be free now. Well, had we not stopped building them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Of course, this is very little battery, because that particular Fraunhofer study did most of the backup using gas. With 150 GW of gas fired plants. 150 GW. Let that sink in. That's more than double the current total demand. Just for backup of the 750 GW of intermittent generators. No wonder that scenario doesn't need all that much battery. Now add the cost of the electroylysers needed to create all that gas. https://taz.de/Wasserstoffprojekt-abgebrochen/!5974569/ https://taz.de/Wasserstoffprojekt-abgebrochen/!5974569/

pfdietz 2y ago
Read it again. The limits it discusses are on hydro generation, not hydro storage. > "Approaching". A Tesla Megapack is more than 3x that. If your argument depends on selecting expensive rather than cheap versions of a technology, I'll do the same with nuclear. Let's use the most disastrous expensive nuclear efforts as representative, shall we? Or, we could just acknowledge that once a lower price point has been demonstrated for storage, the market will move in that direction. Storage, unlike nuclear, doesn't experience out of the blue cost escalation, and many forms are easily shipped worldwide. > Of course, this is very little battery, because that particular Fraunhofer study did most of the backup using gas. With 150 GW of gas fired plants. > That's more than double the current total demand. The gas generators would not run in baseload mode; they'd be for seasonal and Dunkelflaute coverage. Most energy from the renewables would go either directly to the grid or through batteries and then to the grid. The fraction into gas would be modest. BTW, simple cycle gas turbine + generator is about 1/20th the capital cost of a nuclear plant per unit power (combined cycle, 1/10th). So 150 GW is not nearly as much as you might imagine.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > If your argument depends on selecting expensive rather than cheap versions of a technology, It doesn't. It depends on available versions of a technology. Not "approaching" versions of a technology. > Read it again. The limits it discusses are on hydro generation, not hydro storage. That turns out not to be the case. Try reading it again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > The gas generators would not run in baseload mode; That is EXACTLY the point. You need to overbuild enormous amounts of very expensive infrastructure triply-redundantly and then have it sit around idly most of the time. So all of this highly expensive triply-redundant and massively overbuilt infrastructure has to be financed by subsidies, as it can't be paid for by producing electricity. As it isn't actually producing any electricity most of the time. To quote the study again: "...which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... > about 1/20th the capital cost of a nuclear plant per unit power Yeah, not even close. Anyway, I think we've reached the limit of what can be accomplished by discussion.

pfdietz 2y ago

Read it again. The limits it discusses are on hydro generation, not hydro storage. > "Approaching". A Tesla Megapack is more than 3x that. If your argument depends on selecting expensive rather than cheap versions of a technology, I'll do the same with nuclear. Let's use the most disastrous expensive nuclear efforts as representative, shall we? Or, we could just acknowledge that once a lower price point has been demonstrated for storage, the market will move in that direction. Storage, unlike nuclear, doesn't experience out of the blue cost escalation, and many forms are easily shipped worldwide. > Of course, this is very little battery, because that particular Fraunhofer study did most of the backup using gas. With 150 GW of gas fired plants. > That's more than double the current total demand. The gas generators would not run in baseload mode; they'd be for seasonal and Dunkelflaute coverage. Most energy from the renewables would go either directly to the grid or through batteries and then to the grid. The fraction into gas would be modest. BTW, simple cycle gas turbine + generator is about 1/20th the capital cost of a nuclear plant per unit power (combined cycle, 1/10th). So 150 GW is not nearly as much as you might imagine.

mpweiher 2y ago
> If your argument depends on selecting expensive rather than cheap versions of a technology, It doesn't. It depends on available versions of a technology. Not "approaching" versions of a technology. > Read it again. The limits it discusses are on hydro generation, not hydro storage. That turns out not to be the case. Try reading it again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > The gas generators would not run in baseload mode; That is EXACTLY the point. You need to overbuild enormous amounts of very expensive infrastructure triply-redundantly and then have it sit around idly most of the time. So all of this highly expensive triply-redundant and massively overbuilt infrastructure has to be financed by subsidies, as it can't be paid for by producing electricity. As it isn't actually producing any electricity most of the time. To quote the study again: "...which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... > about 1/20th the capital cost of a nuclear plant per unit power Yeah, not even close. Anyway, I think we've reached the limit of what can be accomplished by discussion.