5 ms·

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

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
      You're again talking about simulating only Minnesota I suspect. If you want a realistic simulation there are others in the thread and RethinkX has had a whole-US simulation for a long time. What I've never seen is a nuclear roll-out simulation that argues that's a good option. Do you have one of those?
      - coldpie 1y ago
        > What I've never seen is a nuclear roll-out simulation that argues that's a good option. Do you have one of those? I don't know what a "nuclear roll-out simulation" is, exactly. As stated earlier, my position is that we should be building both nuclear and renewables. We should build whatever makes sense for the area in question. If renewable+storage can solve all of an area's needs, then that's fantastic and we should absolutely do that. If I understand right, you are arguing we should not be building any nuclear, even in Minnesota. I'm unconvinced that renewables+storage alone can solve the Minnesota winter problem. I'm asking if you can provide a link to an analysis showing that we can feasibly and cost-effectively solve the Minnesota winter problem without any nuclear power. Can you please link to one?
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.

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
    You're again talking about simulating only Minnesota I suspect. If you want a realistic simulation there are others in the thread and RethinkX has had a whole-US simulation for a long time. What I've never seen is a nuclear roll-out simulation that argues that's a good option. Do you have one of those?
    - coldpie 1y ago
      > What I've never seen is a nuclear roll-out simulation that argues that's a good option. Do you have one of those? I don't know what a "nuclear roll-out simulation" is, exactly. As stated earlier, my position is that we should be building both nuclear and renewables. We should build whatever makes sense for the area in question. If renewable+storage can solve all of an area's needs, then that's fantastic and we should absolutely do that. If I understand right, you are arguing we should not be building any nuclear, even in Minnesota. I'm unconvinced that renewables+storage alone can solve the Minnesota winter problem. I'm asking if you can provide a link to an analysis showing that we can feasibly and cost-effectively solve the Minnesota winter problem without any nuclear power. Can you please link to one?

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.