4 ms·

>You’re again not considering electrification of current loads that burn fossil fuels You're not considering cost. >Unfortunately, a lot of these loads are cl

by pydry 1y ago

>You’re again not considering electrification of current loads that burn fossil fuels You're not considering cost. >Unfortunately, a lot of these loads are closer to 24/7 The exact opposite is true. Heating, cooling and car charging are just 3 examples of current loads that burn fossil fuels which are already being demand shifted on an electric grid. >The IEA net zero scenario assumes 100TWh of storage Did you assume it was all going to be achieved with batteries? This is a common fallacy perpetuated by nuclear industry propaganda. 350GWh are being built in australia right now with zero batteries, and studies show there is plenty of geography suitable to build plenty more of that around the world. Power2gas+solar+wind is still cheaper than nuclear power even though it's quite expensive. >but having some clean, always-on generation greatly reduces the amount of storage and overprovisioned production of other types needed and there is zero point if the cost is stupidly high (which it is) and we have the imagination to look beyond just batteries as a means of storing power. Nuclear industry propaganda is alas not capable of such.

mlyle 1y ago
> Power2gas+solar+wind is still cheaper than nuclear power even though it's quite expensive. The costing mistake people always make is assuming p2g infrastructure can be operated at high duty cycle with an all renewable grid. If you need to amortize the infrastructure over a few hours per day it looks much less favorable. Of course, with a little more stable base generation in the mix, this assumption is less shaky. It doesn’t need to be a ridiculous amount. More base generation simultaneously makes p2g more reasonable and reduces the total need for it (and total need to overprovision everything else) And even if one disagrees that a small amount of additional nuclear reduces total system cost, it absolutely reduces systemic risk vs putting all of our eggs in the battery basket. Pumped hydro is great for Australia, but the capability to increase hydro in most areas is much more limited. We are going to have to mostly do it with batteries and intermediate term storage with p2g.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  The problem stems form new built western nuclear power costing $190/MWh if it can sell its power 24/7 all year around. Adding that as a base input cost too all storage technology just makes the entire enterprise unfeasible. You also have to answer why this P2G infrastructure should buy your extremely expensive nuclear electricity when renewables and storage delivers way cheaper electricity.
  - mlyle 1y ago
    They should buy the electricity because it is better than leaving the electrolyzers idle when there is no surplus of renewable power alone, and higher utilization spreads capital costs over more production. It can be a tiny portion of the energy cost during the day, and a large part at night. Having a few percent of nameplate power being nuclear doesn’t push up costs too much when renewables are producing. Having a few percent of nameplate power being nuclear means much less total nameplate power, and allows loads like p2g for longer term storage to run more of the day (and means you need to tap the p2g less often, so you can have a -lot- less electrolyzer infrastructure— better utilization and less need). Diversity of approaches lower risks and may lower costs.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      You seem to avoid discussing the actual nuclear cost and try to handwave it away? Why are you so hellbent on wasting our limited resources on a dead-end technology that have delivered negative learning by doing for the past 70 years? Lets calculate running Vogtle at a 10-15% capacity factor like a traditional fossil gas peaker. The electricity now costs $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices. That is what you are yearning for. The problem is anytime you try to force the nuclear costs on the consumers they will instead buy solar and storage and decouple themselves from the grid. There is no way you can try to "average" things out when distributed power production is involved. The market is fundamentally a marginal cost one, no matter how you try to handwave with averages and what not.
      - mlyle 1y ago
        I'm not proposing to run it at a 10-15% capacity factor like a fossil gas peaker. That's a great strawman you have there. I'm proposing we run it at a close-to-100% capacity factor, and overprovision solar by less. Make the grid 10-15% nuclear and the rest renewable (which means 3-5% of nameplate power is nuclear). Use surplus daytime power to charge storage and power2gas. Use surplus nighttime power for power2gas for longer term reserve. Run electrolyzers and power to gas infrastructure during more of the day and make -their- capital costs less ridiculous by having off-hours electricity for them. Build a lot less storage and a lot less overcapacity as a result. > The market is fundamentally a marginal cost one, no matter how you try to handwave with averages and what not. A marginal cost market looking just at KWh isn't stable: in that market, no one pays for grid stability, 99th percentile events, etc. If you're going to pay for things like stability, production at night, guaranteed power for industrial loads, etc: the picture is more nuanced.

by pydry 1y ago

mlyle 1y ago

> Power2gas+solar+wind is still cheaper than nuclear power even though it's quite expensive. The costing mistake people always make is assuming p2g infrastructure can be operated at high duty cycle with an all renewable grid. If you need to amortize the infrastructure over a few hours per day it looks much less favorable. Of course, with a little more stable base generation in the mix, this assumption is less shaky. It doesn’t need to be a ridiculous amount. More base generation simultaneously makes p2g more reasonable and reduces the total need for it (and total need to overprovision everything else) And even if one disagrees that a small amount of additional nuclear reduces total system cost, it absolutely reduces systemic risk vs putting all of our eggs in the battery basket. Pumped hydro is great for Australia, but the capability to increase hydro in most areas is much more limited. We are going to have to mostly do it with batteries and intermediate term storage with p2g.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
The problem stems form new built western nuclear power costing $190/MWh if it can sell its power 24/7 all year around. Adding that as a base input cost too all storage technology just makes the entire enterprise unfeasible. You also have to answer why this P2G infrastructure should buy your extremely expensive nuclear electricity when renewables and storage delivers way cheaper electricity.
- mlyle 1y ago
  They should buy the electricity because it is better than leaving the electrolyzers idle when there is no surplus of renewable power alone, and higher utilization spreads capital costs over more production. It can be a tiny portion of the energy cost during the day, and a large part at night. Having a few percent of nameplate power being nuclear doesn’t push up costs too much when renewables are producing. Having a few percent of nameplate power being nuclear means much less total nameplate power, and allows loads like p2g for longer term storage to run more of the day (and means you need to tap the p2g less often, so you can have a -lot- less electrolyzer infrastructure— better utilization and less need). Diversity of approaches lower risks and may lower costs.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    You seem to avoid discussing the actual nuclear cost and try to handwave it away? Why are you so hellbent on wasting our limited resources on a dead-end technology that have delivered negative learning by doing for the past 70 years? Lets calculate running Vogtle at a 10-15% capacity factor like a traditional fossil gas peaker. The electricity now costs $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices. That is what you are yearning for. The problem is anytime you try to force the nuclear costs on the consumers they will instead buy solar and storage and decouple themselves from the grid. There is no way you can try to "average" things out when distributed power production is involved. The market is fundamentally a marginal cost one, no matter how you try to handwave with averages and what not.
    - mlyle 1y ago
      I'm not proposing to run it at a 10-15% capacity factor like a fossil gas peaker. That's a great strawman you have there. I'm proposing we run it at a close-to-100% capacity factor, and overprovision solar by less. Make the grid 10-15% nuclear and the rest renewable (which means 3-5% of nameplate power is nuclear). Use surplus daytime power to charge storage and power2gas. Use surplus nighttime power for power2gas for longer term reserve. Run electrolyzers and power to gas infrastructure during more of the day and make -their- capital costs less ridiculous by having off-hours electricity for them. Build a lot less storage and a lot less overcapacity as a result. > The market is fundamentally a marginal cost one, no matter how you try to handwave with averages and what not. A marginal cost market looking just at KWh isn't stable: in that market, no one pays for grid stability, 99th percentile events, etc. If you're going to pay for things like stability, production at night, guaranteed power for industrial loads, etc: the picture is more nuanced.