4 ms·

>solar and wind are not baseload power solutions. They are intermittent and unreliable. Being 5x cheaper more than makes up for that though. None of the viabl

by pydry 2y ago

>solar and wind are not baseload power solutions. They are intermittent and unreliable. Being 5x cheaper more than makes up for that though. None of the viable modes of storage (pumped water, hydrogen, batteries) are expensive enough to make paying 5x per kilowatt hour worthwhile any more. If you roundtrip solar and wind via hydrogen stored for months and back into electricity again (the most expensive mechanism), it's still cheaper than every single kilowatt hour of nuclear power delivered on the sunniest, windiest days. It really is difficult to overstate just how mind bogglingly expensive nuclear power is. Unless it's used to cross-subsidize the military nuclear industry it just isnt worth it.

RayVR 2y ago
Where are you going to build a 1GW solar installation with multiple days of storage capacity in the northeast? long transmission lines significantly reduce efficiency and add massive costs as well as creating easy targets for terrorism.
- pydry 2y ago
  Firstly, we should probably not start by building a mathematical renewable energy model that presumes wind energy doesn't exist. Storing solar energy for use while the wind is blowing hard is a bit pointless and vice versa. You don't store energy from solar on a sunny winter day to use at midnight when the wind is blowing hardest and consumption is lowest. Your store energy to use on those rarer hours when it is neither sunny nor windy and when consumption exceeds the production of both. This can be done cost effectively and at scale in two ways - 1) by pushing water uphill for short term storage and 2) by manufacturing hydrogen and storing it underground for longer term storage. So, you combine overproduced solar, wind, pumping water uphill and electrolyzing and storing hydrogen to match demand with supply. Solar and wind and their transmission are distributed. This makes them poor terrorism targets. A nuclear plant, on the other hand, is a great target for terrorists.
chickenbig 2y ago
> Unless it's used to cross-subsidize the military nuclear industry it just isnt worth it. I feel sure Ontario does not have nuclear weapons ambitions. > If you round trip solar and wind via hydrogen Do you have any examples of this at commercial scale (hundreds of MW) and their costings?
- pydry 2y ago
  >I feel sure Ontario does not have nuclear weapons ambitions. Canada actually used to be a nuclear power until 1984. Since then it has signed up to the NPT and disavowing weapons but maintaining a nuclear industry that would let it spin up a nuclear weapons program in a hurry should it deem it necessary (i.e. if the American nuclear umbrella faltered). There are several countries around the world that follow a similar policy - Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Iran. There's value to belonging to the NPT but there's also value to being able to get a nuke in months if an existential crisis presented itself (as it has for Iran). >Do you have any examples of this at commercial scale (hundreds of MW) and their costings? Google for lazard LCOE.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Canada actually used to be a nuclear power until 1984. No, it wasn't, except in the sense that Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and Turkey are nuclear powers today. It was a participant in a nuclear sharing agreements (under the auspices of NORAD, rather than NATO like the other countries) where US-owned and controlled weapons were deployed at Canadian bases, under control of the US military, with plans for transferring them for delivery by Canadian forces in the event of war. It never had its own nuclear weapons or, AFAIK, nuclear weapons program
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > Google for lazard LCOE. I guess LCOH is a more relevant search term. https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april... Page 28 is informative. 220-235 USD/kWh for a 25% blend of unsubsidised PEM hydrogen, or 210-221 USD/kWh a 25% blend for unsubsidised alkaline hydrogen.

by pydry 2y ago

RayVR 2y ago

Where are you going to build a 1GW solar installation with multiple days of storage capacity in the northeast? long transmission lines significantly reduce efficiency and add massive costs as well as creating easy targets for terrorism.

pydry 2y ago
Firstly, we should probably not start by building a mathematical renewable energy model that presumes wind energy doesn't exist. Storing solar energy for use while the wind is blowing hard is a bit pointless and vice versa. You don't store energy from solar on a sunny winter day to use at midnight when the wind is blowing hardest and consumption is lowest. Your store energy to use on those rarer hours when it is neither sunny nor windy and when consumption exceeds the production of both. This can be done cost effectively and at scale in two ways - 1) by pushing water uphill for short term storage and 2) by manufacturing hydrogen and storing it underground for longer term storage. So, you combine overproduced solar, wind, pumping water uphill and electrolyzing and storing hydrogen to match demand with supply. Solar and wind and their transmission are distributed. This makes them poor terrorism targets. A nuclear plant, on the other hand, is a great target for terrorists.

chickenbig 2y ago

> Unless it's used to cross-subsidize the military nuclear industry it just isnt worth it. I feel sure Ontario does not have nuclear weapons ambitions. > If you round trip solar and wind via hydrogen Do you have any examples of this at commercial scale (hundreds of MW) and their costings?

pydry 2y ago
>I feel sure Ontario does not have nuclear weapons ambitions. Canada actually used to be a nuclear power until 1984. Since then it has signed up to the NPT and disavowing weapons but maintaining a nuclear industry that would let it spin up a nuclear weapons program in a hurry should it deem it necessary (i.e. if the American nuclear umbrella faltered). There are several countries around the world that follow a similar policy - Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Iran. There's value to belonging to the NPT but there's also value to being able to get a nuke in months if an existential crisis presented itself (as it has for Iran). >Do you have any examples of this at commercial scale (hundreds of MW) and their costings? Google for lazard LCOE.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Canada actually used to be a nuclear power until 1984. No, it wasn't, except in the sense that Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and Turkey are nuclear powers today. It was a participant in a nuclear sharing agreements (under the auspices of NORAD, rather than NATO like the other countries) where US-owned and controlled weapons were deployed at Canadian bases, under control of the US military, with plans for transferring them for delivery by Canadian forces in the event of war. It never had its own nuclear weapons or, AFAIK, nuclear weapons program
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > Google for lazard LCOE. I guess LCOH is a more relevant search term. https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april... Page 28 is informative. 220-235 USD/kWh for a 25% blend of unsubsidised PEM hydrogen, or 210-221 USD/kWh a 25% blend for unsubsidised alkaline hydrogen.