10 ms·

> intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer Solar power is great but intermittence is the main issue with it. If you look a

by dmm 1y ago

> intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer Solar power is great but intermittence is the main issue with it. If you look at 30 year historical weather data, many highly populated regions have two week periods with almost complete cloud cover. Storage and intercontinental power transmission are usually listed as the solutions to this, but the costs of these solutions are rarely included.

linhns 1y ago
Yes, and people have been as clever as possible dealing with this issue. There is just no good way to solve it.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
> the costs of these solutions are rarely included. Solar plus storage is included in all the major levelized cost reports, like from the NREL.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  Not in any realistic sense. This report https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2025.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost... just mashes together a PV array with about an hour of storage and quotes a price for that which is low and is certainly not going to get you through the night. So many things drive me nuts about that report and the discourse around it that, I think, contribute to people talking past each other. For instance, quoting one price for solar energy is nonsensical when the same solar panel is going to give much more energy in Arizona than it is in upstate New York. The cost of a solar + battery system is going to be different in different places. In upstate NY we deal with a lot of retailers that are based in places like Bentonville, AK who just can't believe you might need an electric space heater in late April or otherwise your chickens might die. Since 95% of the world's population lives in a milder climate it's no wonder our needs don't get taken seriously. The intermittency problem involves: (1) diurnal variation (overnight), (2) seasonal variation (do you overbuild solar panels 3x so you have enough generation in the winter or do you invest in very long term storage?) and (3) Dunkelflaute conditions when you are unlucky and get a few bad weeks of weather. I've seen analyses of the cost of a grid that consider just smoothing out one day, but not one that covers seasonal variation. (So much of it comes down to: "how many days of blackout a year can people tolerate?") With a significant overbuild or weeks worth of storage capacity costs are not going to be so favorable against nuclear energy. The overbuild offers the possibility that you could do something useful with the extra power but it is easier said than done because "free" power from renewables is like a free puppy. You have to build power lines to transmit it, or batteries to store it, or you have to feed it into some machine whose capital costs are low enough that you're not going to worry about the economics of only running it 20% of the time. (Go tell a Chemical Engineer about your plan to run a chemical factory 20% of the time and that's probably the last time you'll hear from them.)
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    A case study for Denmark. Not even using the latest plummet in price of BESS. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Generally: Renewables and storage solve somewhere high in the 90s percent. Then throw some gas turbines on it. Low CAPEX high OPEX. Just like we’ve done for the past decades with the previous ”base load and peaking” paradigm. Those gas turbines will be a minuscule part of the total energy supply. When it finally becomes the most pressing issue the gas turbines can trivially be fueled by green hydrogen, green hydrogen derivatives, biofuels or biogas from collecting food waste. If they are still needed. Lets wait and see what aviation and shipping settles on before attempting to solve a future issue today.
    - ttfkam 1y ago
      I love how green hydrogen is assumed to become abundant and trivially easy to retrofit into existing infrastructure but fast neutron reactors are automatically considered infeasible by comparison. Or that by far the easiest way to produce massive amounts hydrogen without emitting carbon into the atmosphere is… wait for it… nuclear power.
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        Yes, hydrogen is clearly a much easier technology to make work than fast reactors. Why is this even a question? For example, fast reactors have the issue that in an accident, if fuel melts and rearranges, one can have potentially have a configuration that is prompt supercritical on fast neutrons. This is functionally an atomic bomb. Also, even in a Fallout Future where everything is nuclear powered, hydrogen is still needed! Some 6% of today's global natural gas consumption goes to making hydrogen, and a good chunk of that is for ammonia synthesis, which is necessary to feed eight billion people.
        ttfkam 1y ago
        "Functionally an atomic bomb"? Why do you speak on topics you obviously know so little about? Where did you get this nonsense? Fast neutron designs aren't without their challenges, but causing an atomic explosion is not on that list. Hydrogen explosions? Possible. Steam explosions? Possible. Atomic explosions? Not even theoretically can you get enough U-235 to clump together to do that without cancelling known basic laws of physics. To build a bomb, you need a purity of 90%+ U-235. Nuclear power plants have what? 2%? 3%? Might even go as high as 5%? Might as well expect a pack of bubble gum to spontaneously explode.
titzer 1y ago
Solar can still generate up to 25% of their peak power with full cloud cover.
- CooCooCaCha 1y ago
  The issue is renewables are not a complete solution no matter how good it feelz
  - titzer 1y ago
    I was just injecting facts into the discussion without taking a side. I know that's confusing behavior.
  - notTooFarGone 1y ago
    people really take offense in how energy gets produced even...

by dmm 1y ago

linhns 1y ago

Yes, and people have been as clever as possible dealing with this issue. There is just no good way to solve it.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

> the costs of these solutions are rarely included. Solar plus storage is included in all the major levelized cost reports, like from the NREL.

PaulHoule 1y ago
Not in any realistic sense. This report https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2025.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost... just mashes together a PV array with about an hour of storage and quotes a price for that which is low and is certainly not going to get you through the night. So many things drive me nuts about that report and the discourse around it that, I think, contribute to people talking past each other. For instance, quoting one price for solar energy is nonsensical when the same solar panel is going to give much more energy in Arizona than it is in upstate New York. The cost of a solar + battery system is going to be different in different places. In upstate NY we deal with a lot of retailers that are based in places like Bentonville, AK who just can't believe you might need an electric space heater in late April or otherwise your chickens might die. Since 95% of the world's population lives in a milder climate it's no wonder our needs don't get taken seriously. The intermittency problem involves: (1) diurnal variation (overnight), (2) seasonal variation (do you overbuild solar panels 3x so you have enough generation in the winter or do you invest in very long term storage?) and (3) Dunkelflaute conditions when you are unlucky and get a few bad weeks of weather. I've seen analyses of the cost of a grid that consider just smoothing out one day, but not one that covers seasonal variation. (So much of it comes down to: "how many days of blackout a year can people tolerate?") With a significant overbuild or weeks worth of storage capacity costs are not going to be so favorable against nuclear energy. The overbuild offers the possibility that you could do something useful with the extra power but it is easier said than done because "free" power from renewables is like a free puppy. You have to build power lines to transmit it, or batteries to store it, or you have to feed it into some machine whose capital costs are low enough that you're not going to worry about the economics of only running it 20% of the time. (Go tell a Chemical Engineer about your plan to run a chemical factory 20% of the time and that's probably the last time you'll hear from them.)
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  A case study for Denmark. Not even using the latest plummet in price of BESS. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Generally: Renewables and storage solve somewhere high in the 90s percent. Then throw some gas turbines on it. Low CAPEX high OPEX. Just like we’ve done for the past decades with the previous ”base load and peaking” paradigm. Those gas turbines will be a minuscule part of the total energy supply. When it finally becomes the most pressing issue the gas turbines can trivially be fueled by green hydrogen, green hydrogen derivatives, biofuels or biogas from collecting food waste. If they are still needed. Lets wait and see what aviation and shipping settles on before attempting to solve a future issue today.
  - ttfkam 1y ago
    I love how green hydrogen is assumed to become abundant and trivially easy to retrofit into existing infrastructure but fast neutron reactors are automatically considered infeasible by comparison. Or that by far the easiest way to produce massive amounts hydrogen without emitting carbon into the atmosphere is… wait for it… nuclear power.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      Yes, hydrogen is clearly a much easier technology to make work than fast reactors. Why is this even a question? For example, fast reactors have the issue that in an accident, if fuel melts and rearranges, one can have potentially have a configuration that is prompt supercritical on fast neutrons. This is functionally an atomic bomb. Also, even in a Fallout Future where everything is nuclear powered, hydrogen is still needed! Some 6% of today's global natural gas consumption goes to making hydrogen, and a good chunk of that is for ammonia synthesis, which is necessary to feed eight billion people.
      - ttfkam 1y ago
        "Functionally an atomic bomb"? Why do you speak on topics you obviously know so little about? Where did you get this nonsense? Fast neutron designs aren't without their challenges, but causing an atomic explosion is not on that list. Hydrogen explosions? Possible. Steam explosions? Possible. Atomic explosions? Not even theoretically can you get enough U-235 to clump together to do that without cancelling known basic laws of physics. To build a bomb, you need a purity of 90%+ U-235. Nuclear power plants have what? 2%? 3%? Might even go as high as 5%? Might as well expect a pack of bubble gum to spontaneously explode.

titzer 1y ago

Solar can still generate up to 25% of their peak power with full cloud cover.

CooCooCaCha 1y ago
The issue is renewables are not a complete solution no matter how good it feelz
- titzer 1y ago
  I was just injecting facts into the discussion without taking a side. I know that's confusing behavior.
- notTooFarGone 1y ago
  people really take offense in how energy gets produced even...