3 ms·

A lot of Europe lies in northern areas where solar is simply insufficient, especially in winter. Solar / wind + huge batteries + huge transmission lines would

by nine_k 2y ago

A lot of Europe lies in northern areas where solar is simply insufficient, especially in winter. Solar / wind + huge batteries + huge transmission lines would compare: capture sunlight in places like Bulgaria or Greece, feed places like Norway or Britain. But this is way more disruptive, and likely expensive, than a nuclear power plant.

Epa095 2y ago
Op said renewables, not solar. Both Norway and Sweeden have significant (renewable) hydro, which pairs well with the cyclical nature of both wind and solar.
cycomanic 2y ago
That's just not true. But more importantly investing in nuclear now. As long as we don't even have sufficient renewables to constantly power us during the day, good weather... it has a much higher CO2 reduction impact to invest in renewables than building nuclear power plants.
- nine_k 2y ago
  What's not true? That Sweden or UK receive less solar radiation than Greece, especially in December? That building a huge transmission line from there (or, better yet, from Sahara) would be a very hard and expensive undertaking? That having enough batteries to sustain, say, 2 days of baseload supply, when it's cloudy and not windy, is hugely expensive, and has never been tried because of that? Well, nuclear is also expensive, but it's partly regulation, partly nuclear being bespoke in many cases, while solar panels currently enjoy enormous economy of scale. I all for nuclear, for the record.
  - gocartStatue 2y ago
    They receive less solar radiation, but still some. They both have great conditions for offshore wind. Also all for nuclear, but decentralized renewables are great.
  - t43562 2y ago
    Nuclear is a total disaster recently. Enormous cost overruns, delayed operation. What reason in hell is there to pour money into that instead of wind? Wind works. Every turbine built adds power - no need to wait decades for the next screwed up nuclear install. I'm a fan of the SMR idea although it turns out that it's less economic than people thought at the smaller sizes anyhow. I'm also very interested in the fusion startups............BUT we have to solve the climate problem now -- yesterday if it were possible.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      We have no problem generating power with wind or solar. We have a problem of doing it in a dependable manner. If there's something to pour money into, it's battery storage, both building much more of it, and developing cheaper variants of it. We need the cost of LiFePO4 batteries to fall as dramatically as the cost of solar panels did. Then renewables will make much bigger inroads into the grid in a lot of places.
      - t43562 2y ago
        https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-to-develop-10-gigawatt-hours-of-long-duration-energy-storage-delivering-over-10-of-uk-ldes-storage-targets/ https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-t... ...for example! "LONDON – 15 October, 2024 – Highview Power, a leading provider of long-duration energy storage (LDES) technology, announced today that its plans to develop four new 2.5GWh power plants in the UK by 2030, have taken a crucial step forward following the launch of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) new investment support scheme. The scheme will use a “cap and floor” mechanism which will unlock the next stage of investment in the multi-billion-pound LDES programme, enabling the technologies vast potential to underpin UK decarbonisation. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will deliver more storage than all of the UK’s existing battery storage, using 100% sustainable technology, with a 40-year lifespan. The addition of these four plants by 2030 means the government’s target to achieve a net zero grid by 2030 is achievable. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will be in Scotland and the other two in England. The first new plant will be located in Hunterston, Scotland."
    - 2y ago
pfdietz 2y ago
Batteries are not the only storage technology, nor is it the case that only one storage technology would be used, as different ones are best for different storage timespans. Diurnal would be batteries, but seasonal storage would likely be something different (like e-fuels). Whether it is "disruptive" doesn't matter. What matters is cost. Renewables + storage look to be much cheaper than nuclear in the best places and at least competitive in the worst. There was an insightful post a little while ago about people liking nuclear because of a bias toward simple solutions. It reminded me of the adage "for any problem, there's a solution that's simple, straightforward... and wrong." The economy is quite willing to optimize for more complex solutions if this ends up saving money. "Keep it simple, stupid (KISS)" doesn't apply at the level of the whole economy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43426010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43426010

by nine_k 2y ago

Epa095 2y ago

Op said renewables, not solar. Both Norway and Sweeden have significant (renewable) hydro, which pairs well with the cyclical nature of both wind and solar.

cycomanic 2y ago

That's just not true. But more importantly investing in nuclear now. As long as we don't even have sufficient renewables to constantly power us during the day, good weather... it has a much higher CO2 reduction impact to invest in renewables than building nuclear power plants.

nine_k 2y ago
What's not true? That Sweden or UK receive less solar radiation than Greece, especially in December? That building a huge transmission line from there (or, better yet, from Sahara) would be a very hard and expensive undertaking? That having enough batteries to sustain, say, 2 days of baseload supply, when it's cloudy and not windy, is hugely expensive, and has never been tried because of that? Well, nuclear is also expensive, but it's partly regulation, partly nuclear being bespoke in many cases, while solar panels currently enjoy enormous economy of scale. I all for nuclear, for the record.
- gocartStatue 2y ago
  They receive less solar radiation, but still some. They both have great conditions for offshore wind. Also all for nuclear, but decentralized renewables are great.
- t43562 2y ago
  Nuclear is a total disaster recently. Enormous cost overruns, delayed operation. What reason in hell is there to pour money into that instead of wind? Wind works. Every turbine built adds power - no need to wait decades for the next screwed up nuclear install. I'm a fan of the SMR idea although it turns out that it's less economic than people thought at the smaller sizes anyhow. I'm also very interested in the fusion startups............BUT we have to solve the climate problem now -- yesterday if it were possible.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    We have no problem generating power with wind or solar. We have a problem of doing it in a dependable manner. If there's something to pour money into, it's battery storage, both building much more of it, and developing cheaper variants of it. We need the cost of LiFePO4 batteries to fall as dramatically as the cost of solar panels did. Then renewables will make much bigger inroads into the grid in a lot of places.
    - t43562 2y ago
      https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-to-develop-10-gigawatt-hours-of-long-duration-energy-storage-delivering-over-10-of-uk-ldes-storage-targets/ https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-t... ...for example! "LONDON – 15 October, 2024 – Highview Power, a leading provider of long-duration energy storage (LDES) technology, announced today that its plans to develop four new 2.5GWh power plants in the UK by 2030, have taken a crucial step forward following the launch of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) new investment support scheme. The scheme will use a “cap and floor” mechanism which will unlock the next stage of investment in the multi-billion-pound LDES programme, enabling the technologies vast potential to underpin UK decarbonisation. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will deliver more storage than all of the UK’s existing battery storage, using 100% sustainable technology, with a 40-year lifespan. The addition of these four plants by 2030 means the government’s target to achieve a net zero grid by 2030 is achievable. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will be in Scotland and the other two in England. The first new plant will be located in Hunterston, Scotland."
  - 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

Batteries are not the only storage technology, nor is it the case that only one storage technology would be used, as different ones are best for different storage timespans. Diurnal would be batteries, but seasonal storage would likely be something different (like e-fuels). Whether it is "disruptive" doesn't matter. What matters is cost. Renewables + storage look to be much cheaper than nuclear in the best places and at least competitive in the worst. There was an insightful post a little while ago about people liking nuclear because of a bias toward simple solutions. It reminded me of the adage "for any problem, there's a solution that's simple, straightforward... and wrong." The economy is quite willing to optimize for more complex solutions if this ends up saving money. "Keep it simple, stupid (KISS)" doesn't apply at the level of the whole economy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43426010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43426010