3 ms·

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pu

by j-pb 2y ago

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$ - The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$ - Cost for solar 24–96$ - Cost for wind 24–75$ - Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$ - Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$ - Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$ So you can combine renewables with the most expensive/deluxe storage technology available today and it's still cheaper than nuclear. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april... 2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... 3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/energy-storage/recommendations-energy-storage_en https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...

kgabis 2y ago
> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s
- j-pb 2y ago
  He said without providing any backing. But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#erlac4dc8f1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#... They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System. So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
  - kgabis 2y ago
    This study assumes 54.8 TWh of hydrogen storage, good luck with that.
    - defrost 2y ago
      That's between 1.5 and 2 million tonnes of hydrogen .. in a world that currently produces about 74 million tonnes of hydrogen annually already. There are multiple sources for those interested, https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-of-thumb-of-the-hydrogen-economy https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-o... is a brief dot point page, the Hydrogen UK and European Hydrogen Backbone reports are longer more detailed technical report papers.
      - kgabis 2y ago
        Cool link, thanks. But speaking about hydrogen production and not storage is a bit misleading: currently we can story only 0.5TWh of energy using hydrogen WORLDWIDE, and this paper proposes 55TWh just for Germany. Currently, hydrogen is mostly used for greenwashing fossil fuels, with a promise that if be build infrastructure using "bad" hydrogen, we will be ready when "good" hydrogen arrives.
        j-pb 2y ago
        Yeah its used for greenwashing. But you wanted a 100% study and I provided one. Our point is that nuclear is used exactly for the same purpose: "We don't need to invest into renewables, because fusion and nuclear is gonna magically save us all in 10 years." Again it's great that france has this much nuclear right now. But that's not a good path for the rest of europe catching up. Especially not with the current price trajectories. (Nuclear becoming more expensive, storage and renewables getting cheaper)
        kgabis 2y ago
        I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in renewables, but that we need to consider their limitations, primarily intermittency and unfeasability of storing TWhs of energy for later. At the same time, we need to find a way to cheaply and fast build new nuclear power stations (like Korea and China are doing). Time is running out, yet a large group of public opposes the single biggest source of clean energy there is.
Kuinox 2y ago
> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. The number I first gave(CO2 per kWh) is when Germany was at more than 80% renewable, at the time I wrote the comment. As we can all see the 'low carbon' target you set yourself in your example is not enough.
- j-pb 2y ago
  The target I set in my example was 100% Renewables. No carbon is not enough for zero carbon? Btw the EU wants 80% renewables by 2050, that includes coal guzzlers like poland. Germany wants 100% renewables by 2035. So you're barking at the wrong tree.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    So you say Germany is already doing enough ? The tree I'm barking at kills thousands of European every year by burning coal, and finance anti-nuclear propaganda. https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final.pdf https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final.... https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Interference_Political_Foundations.pdf https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Int...
    - j-pb 2y ago
      Your pro-nuclear propaganda is just anti-renewable propaganda in a trench-coat. Should germany do more? Yes! Is it great that france spend the last 70 years building 0-CO2 emmision power plants? Yes! Should germany spend its money on the cheapest, most available technology? Yes! Is your nuclear greenwash for new reactors in germany an obvious conservative derailment strategy to delay more investment in renewables? Yes! (you might actually believe this stuff, but german conservative parties that use this dogwhistle certainly don't)

by j-pb 2y ago

kgabis 2y ago

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s

j-pb 2y ago
He said without providing any backing. But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#erlac4dc8f1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#... They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System. So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
- kgabis 2y ago
  This study assumes 54.8 TWh of hydrogen storage, good luck with that.
  - defrost 2y ago
    That's between 1.5 and 2 million tonnes of hydrogen .. in a world that currently produces about 74 million tonnes of hydrogen annually already. There are multiple sources for those interested, https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-of-thumb-of-the-hydrogen-economy https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-o... is a brief dot point page, the Hydrogen UK and European Hydrogen Backbone reports are longer more detailed technical report papers.
    - kgabis 2y ago
      Cool link, thanks. But speaking about hydrogen production and not storage is a bit misleading: currently we can story only 0.5TWh of energy using hydrogen WORLDWIDE, and this paper proposes 55TWh just for Germany. Currently, hydrogen is mostly used for greenwashing fossil fuels, with a promise that if be build infrastructure using "bad" hydrogen, we will be ready when "good" hydrogen arrives.
      - j-pb 2y ago
        Yeah its used for greenwashing. But you wanted a 100% study and I provided one. Our point is that nuclear is used exactly for the same purpose: "We don't need to invest into renewables, because fusion and nuclear is gonna magically save us all in 10 years." Again it's great that france has this much nuclear right now. But that's not a good path for the rest of europe catching up. Especially not with the current price trajectories. (Nuclear becoming more expensive, storage and renewables getting cheaper)
        kgabis 2y ago
        I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in renewables, but that we need to consider their limitations, primarily intermittency and unfeasability of storing TWhs of energy for later. At the same time, we need to find a way to cheaply and fast build new nuclear power stations (like Korea and China are doing). Time is running out, yet a large group of public opposes the single biggest source of clean energy there is.

Kuinox 2y ago

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. The number I first gave(CO2 per kWh) is when Germany was at more than 80% renewable, at the time I wrote the comment. As we can all see the 'low carbon' target you set yourself in your example is not enough.

j-pb 2y ago
The target I set in my example was 100% Renewables. No carbon is not enough for zero carbon? Btw the EU wants 80% renewables by 2050, that includes coal guzzlers like poland. Germany wants 100% renewables by 2035. So you're barking at the wrong tree.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  So you say Germany is already doing enough ? The tree I'm barking at kills thousands of European every year by burning coal, and finance anti-nuclear propaganda. https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final.pdf https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final.... https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Interference_Political_Foundations.pdf https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Int...
  - j-pb 2y ago
    Your pro-nuclear propaganda is just anti-renewable propaganda in a trench-coat. Should germany do more? Yes! Is it great that france spend the last 70 years building 0-CO2 emmision power plants? Yes! Should germany spend its money on the cheapest, most available technology? Yes! Is your nuclear greenwash for new reactors in germany an obvious conservative derailment strategy to delay more investment in renewables? Yes! (you might actually believe this stuff, but german conservative parties that use this dogwhistle certainly don't)