4 ms·

I have yet to see a convincing analysis that renewables+storage can cost-effectively power all the homes in Minnesota, where I live, through our 4+ month-long w

I have yet to see a convincing analysis that renewables+storage can cost-effectively power all the homes in Minnesota, where I live, through our 4+ month-long winters. The days get very short, the Earth tilts away from the sun, cloud-cover and snowfall is frequent, and going 24+ hours without power for heat can be fatal, not just inconvenient. I'd welcome someone to try to run the numbers on this. I tried myself, but I just don't have the expertise. Don't forget to account for almost all of our current heating coming from natural gas burned on-premise. Then, expand your analysis to include all buildings in all northern climes. Is there even enough materials on the planet to build all those batteries? Do batteries even work at -40 degrees? And that's just one set of challenges, every area has similar but different problems for renewables to tackle. The answer is both: put huge money into renewables and into nuclear. Nuclear is a proven tech. It works. We understand it. We stupidly threw away all of our skill to build it, and put up huge regulatory roadblocks. But those are solvable human problems, if we care to do it. Storage for renewables is still a huge question mark, which we should also dump a ton of money into, but we need a solution today. Nuclear is here.

pedrocr 1y ago
Why would you model Minnesota specifically when that state is part of a larger region that can tradeoff power over time? Canada's hydro is much more "here" than the hypothetical new nuclear plants Minnesota would have to build. Splitting up the world in areas and then claiming you need to solve a different problem in each is throwing away probably the most cost effective way to get cheaper energy, more grid interconnection and more price mechanisms to shape supply and demand.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
  Minnesota has 8 hydro plants already... in addition to 2 nuclear plants and a host of coal, gas, solar, wind, etc. They generate 57 Twh right now. That's about 10% of the current production of the entire nation of Canada just for one US state. I think you are greatly underestimating the scale of the United States compared to Canada.
  - pedrocr 1y ago
    Canada isn't small, it produces almost 10x the electrical energy that Minnesota does. But I wasn't even giving it as an example of total capacity just of a neighbor that has a bunch of hydro that can be useful in some moments. And it works both ways too. When Minnesota has excess wind Canada can benefit. The same exercise needs to be modelled with all demand and capacity within viable transmission range. And with the advancements in HVDC that range keeps increasing.
    - mcosta 1y ago
      Canada is big but it is mostly empty. Canada population is 40M.
- coldpie 1y ago
  I admit this is a poor and hand-wavey response, but I'll try anyway. If we agree that solar+storage is off the table, then the question is what should we build instead? And I would guess that the people who make these decisions do consider hydro and importing power, but still decide that nuclear is the right answer. Given they're the experts and have all the info, and I don't, I'd defer to them in deciding what the best option is given all the inputs. As an example of downsides for Canadian hydro power, I would be thinking about our current geopolitical nonsense, and also transmission losses. Perhaps nuclear is the winner when you account for those? But like I said, I don't know.
  - pedrocr 1y ago
    I'm confused. Who has agreed that solar+wind is off the table? Approximately no one has effectively decided nuclear is the right answer for a long time. If the proof is in what the market is actually building, solar and wind are the winners by huge margins. What's commonly done in these arguments, and you did some of that, is declare that from first principles nuclear is the solution and we aren't only doing it for other reasons. Yet while there are plenty of simulations of doing full grids with only solar, wind and batteries there's never one where a full nuclear roll-out actually makes sense economically.
    - coldpie 1y ago
      > I'm confused. Who has agreed that solar+wind is off the table? Ah okay! That's our disconnect. Do go run the numbers on how much natural gas we're burning up here. It's a lot, like seriously a lot. How many batteries will we need to ensure that amount of energy is available for (say) 2 weeks of continuous cloud cover at -10 ~ -40 degrees F? Keep in mind that if it fails, people will die. I don't feel confident enough in my own analysis to share it, but do try it out yourself for an exercise. It's pretty eye-opening. > Yet while there are plenty of simulations of doing full grids with only solar, wind and batteries I would love to see this! Can you share some? Do they account for converting Minnesota's heating needs from natural gas?
      - pedrocr 1y ago
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  Expand the analysis to anyone above 40deg latitude with wintertime average temperature below freezing. Show your work. That's fine. 40deg lat includes a _lot_ of the world.
- fred_is_fred 1y ago
  How do you handle growth in demand over time? Anywhere with good economics to build hydro has been done before.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
The minnesota problem always comes up in this discussion and realistically if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there, we're not even close to renewable saturation to even think about minnesota
- coldpie 1y ago
  Well, our power needs are going up, and so we have to build new capacity. The question is what to build? These make for interesting discussions because there are many options on the table for places like Minnesota. No one's discussing the article about Texas's 500th successful solar farm deployment :)
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  So, the entire nation of Canada gets a free pass to burn all the gas they want? And Russia? And the northern EU? And many parts of China, Japan, northern US (NYC!? Buffalo?). Northern Italy, Germany, Switzerland? Does everyone who dips below 0 deg F get to burn gas? -10F? If the infra remains in place with that kind of demand, don't you see the costs being low enough that people elsewhere will want to do that rather than transition to carbon-free for the fun of it? It's hand waved away like this, but did anyone do the analysis as suggested? My guess is the results will not be as easy to wave away as you suggest. But OTOH, maybe heat pumps + overcapacity solar arrays will do it. Who knows?
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, but yes, if we had 100% capacity for renewables in non-cold areas (which we're not even close to, even 80% would be miraculous) we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas. They don't have to be of equal priority. We could ignore them completely and focus on the most viable areas and have years and years of work to be done. We are not building nearly as fast as we should. Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. This is not a worthwhile subject to discuss in this context. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
ericd 1y ago
Yeah, it's pretty eye opening to see how much more power our home's solar array puts out during the summer vs. the winter. It's like 3-4x, on average, while our power demand is actually highest in winter, due to the higher deltas between outdoor temps and reasonable indoor temps. As we shift more and more heating to electric heat pump, base load power capability is going to become more and more important. And yeah, we need to decarbonize ASAP.
pjc50 1y ago
I'd like to reverse the location specific question and ask: what is the correct number of nuclear reactors for Iran to have?
- coldpie 1y ago
  Huh? This seems like a non-sequitur, but if you want the answer I guess you'd want to ask someone familiar with Iranian weather patterns, which ain't me.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  LWRs don't need weapons grade uranium and don't produce weapons grade plutonium. Iran could have civil nuclear energy and not have a nuclear weapons program.
ben_w 1y ago
> Is there even enough materials on the planet to build all those batteries? By many, many orders of magnitude. There's enough stuff you could use batteries as a replacement for bricks (and timber) in your (everyone's, worldwide) house construction, and still only be a rounding error in the global resources. Also more than one chemistry, so while Wikipedia says li-ion batteries use 11.6 kWh per kilogram of lithium, just remember there's also sodium-based batteries and literally oceans full of both sodium and lithium. And they can be recycled when they wear out, unlike methane, oil, and coal which are burned in the process of making heat; and all of those are extracted at a much higher rate than are battery minerals would need to be even if we didn't recycle at end-of-life when they've been through too many charge-discharge cycles. > Nuclear is here. So are renewables, and they're already cheaper. But also, getting power from a nuclear reactor to your house requires a power grid. And you can also use that power grid to simply… put the e.g. solar panels somewhere else in your country that isn't -40 and covered in snow — or a different country, as demonstrated by e.g. the USA's western connection tying bits of Canada to bits of Mexico: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmission_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmiss...

pedrocr 1y ago

Why would you model Minnesota specifically when that state is part of a larger region that can tradeoff power over time? Canada's hydro is much more "here" than the hypothetical new nuclear plants Minnesota would have to build. Splitting up the world in areas and then claiming you need to solve a different problem in each is throwing away probably the most cost effective way to get cheaper energy, more grid interconnection and more price mechanisms to shape supply and demand.

FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
Minnesota has 8 hydro plants already... in addition to 2 nuclear plants and a host of coal, gas, solar, wind, etc. They generate 57 Twh right now. That's about 10% of the current production of the entire nation of Canada just for one US state. I think you are greatly underestimating the scale of the United States compared to Canada.
- pedrocr 1y ago
  Canada isn't small, it produces almost 10x the electrical energy that Minnesota does. But I wasn't even giving it as an example of total capacity just of a neighbor that has a bunch of hydro that can be useful in some moments. And it works both ways too. When Minnesota has excess wind Canada can benefit. The same exercise needs to be modelled with all demand and capacity within viable transmission range. And with the advancements in HVDC that range keeps increasing.
  - mcosta 1y ago
    Canada is big but it is mostly empty. Canada population is 40M.
coldpie 1y ago
I admit this is a poor and hand-wavey response, but I'll try anyway. If we agree that solar+storage is off the table, then the question is what should we build instead? And I would guess that the people who make these decisions do consider hydro and importing power, but still decide that nuclear is the right answer. Given they're the experts and have all the info, and I don't, I'd defer to them in deciding what the best option is given all the inputs. As an example of downsides for Canadian hydro power, I would be thinking about our current geopolitical nonsense, and also transmission losses. Perhaps nuclear is the winner when you account for those? But like I said, I don't know.
- pedrocr 1y ago
  I'm confused. Who has agreed that solar+wind is off the table? Approximately no one has effectively decided nuclear is the right answer for a long time. If the proof is in what the market is actually building, solar and wind are the winners by huge margins. What's commonly done in these arguments, and you did some of that, is declare that from first principles nuclear is the solution and we aren't only doing it for other reasons. Yet while there are plenty of simulations of doing full grids with only solar, wind and batteries there's never one where a full nuclear roll-out actually makes sense economically.
  - coldpie 1y ago
    > I'm confused. Who has agreed that solar+wind is off the table? Ah okay! That's our disconnect. Do go run the numbers on how much natural gas we're burning up here. It's a lot, like seriously a lot. How many batteries will we need to ensure that amount of energy is available for (say) 2 weeks of continuous cloud cover at -10 ~ -40 degrees F? Keep in mind that if it fails, people will die. I don't feel confident enough in my own analysis to share it, but do try it out yourself for an exercise. It's pretty eye-opening. > Yet while there are plenty of simulations of doing full grids with only solar, wind and batteries I would love to see this! Can you share some? Do they account for converting Minnesota's heating needs from natural gas?
    - pedrocr 1y ago
jvanderbot 1y ago
Expand the analysis to anyone above 40deg latitude with wintertime average temperature below freezing. Show your work. That's fine. 40deg lat includes a _lot_ of the world.
fred_is_fred 1y ago
How do you handle growth in demand over time? Anywhere with good economics to build hydro has been done before.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

The minnesota problem always comes up in this discussion and realistically if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there, we're not even close to renewable saturation to even think about minnesota

coldpie 1y ago
Well, our power needs are going up, and so we have to build new capacity. The question is what to build? These make for interesting discussions because there are many options on the table for places like Minnesota. No one's discussing the article about Texas's 500th successful solar farm deployment :)
jvanderbot 1y ago
So, the entire nation of Canada gets a free pass to burn all the gas they want? And Russia? And the northern EU? And many parts of China, Japan, northern US (NYC!? Buffalo?). Northern Italy, Germany, Switzerland? Does everyone who dips below 0 deg F get to burn gas? -10F? If the infra remains in place with that kind of demand, don't you see the costs being low enough that people elsewhere will want to do that rather than transition to carbon-free for the fun of it? It's hand waved away like this, but did anyone do the analysis as suggested? My guess is the results will not be as easy to wave away as you suggest. But OTOH, maybe heat pumps + overcapacity solar arrays will do it. Who knows?
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, but yes, if we had 100% capacity for renewables in non-cold areas (which we're not even close to, even 80% would be miraculous) we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas. They don't have to be of equal priority. We could ignore them completely and focus on the most viable areas and have years and years of work to be done. We are not building nearly as fast as we should. Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. This is not a worthwhile subject to discuss in this context. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

ericd 1y ago

Yeah, it's pretty eye opening to see how much more power our home's solar array puts out during the summer vs. the winter. It's like 3-4x, on average, while our power demand is actually highest in winter, due to the higher deltas between outdoor temps and reasonable indoor temps. As we shift more and more heating to electric heat pump, base load power capability is going to become more and more important. And yeah, we need to decarbonize ASAP.

pjc50 1y ago

I'd like to reverse the location specific question and ask: what is the correct number of nuclear reactors for Iran to have?

coldpie 1y ago
Huh? This seems like a non-sequitur, but if you want the answer I guess you'd want to ask someone familiar with Iranian weather patterns, which ain't me.
PaulHoule 1y ago
LWRs don't need weapons grade uranium and don't produce weapons grade plutonium. Iran could have civil nuclear energy and not have a nuclear weapons program.

ben_w 1y ago

> Is there even enough materials on the planet to build all those batteries? By many, many orders of magnitude. There's enough stuff you could use batteries as a replacement for bricks (and timber) in your (everyone's, worldwide) house construction, and still only be a rounding error in the global resources. Also more than one chemistry, so while Wikipedia says li-ion batteries use 11.6 kWh per kilogram of lithium, just remember there's also sodium-based batteries and literally oceans full of both sodium and lithium. And they can be recycled when they wear out, unlike methane, oil, and coal which are burned in the process of making heat; and all of those are extracted at a much higher rate than are battery minerals would need to be even if we didn't recycle at end-of-life when they've been through too many charge-discharge cycles. > Nuclear is here. So are renewables, and they're already cheaper. But also, getting power from a nuclear reactor to your house requires a power grid. And you can also use that power grid to simply… put the e.g. solar panels somewhere else in your country that isn't -40 and covered in snow — or a different country, as demonstrated by e.g. the USA's western connection tying bits of Canada to bits of Mexico: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmission_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmiss...