3 ms·

Firm/dispatchable capacity that can run for arbitrary durations is required unless you've solved seasonal storage. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-43

Firm/dispatchable capacity that can run for arbitrary durations is required unless you've solved seasonal storage. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30386-6 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30386-6 Firm low-carbon resources consistently lower decarbonized electricity system costs • Availability of firm low-carbon resources reduces costs 10%–62% in zero-CO2 cases • Without these resources, electricity costs rise rapidly as CO2 limits near zero • Batteries and demand flexibility do not substitute for firm low-carbon resources

energy123 6mo ago
The solution mix needs to be tailored the location. Non-tropical equatorial countries don't have meaningful seasonality, so they don't need seasonal storage. For countries far north of the equator, it's more challenging, but there are multiple tools to address this, including: over-building so you have enough in winter, using wind which is seasonally negatively correlated with solar, importing power over HVDC, and diversifying wind spatially to reduce correlations which drop more than linearly in distance. For small countries very far away from the equator that have highly variable insolation and limited geography to decorrelate, nuclear may be better. But it cannot be asserted a priori without a simulation study tailored to the specifics of that location. When I said that nuclear is bad, I am talking in generalities about the common case (United States) at current market prices. The paper that you linked is old, we are dealing with exponential change in the price of storage and solar.
- UltraSane 6mo ago
  "over-building so you have enough in winter" This makes wind and solar much more expensive to the point where nuclear is cheaper. " we are dealing with exponential change in the price of storage and solar." But not in grid storage. That is still incredibly expensive.
  - energy123 6mo ago
    > "over-building so you have enough in winter" This makes wind and solar much more expensive to the point where nuclear is cheaper. No it doesn't. Why do you just say that? There are simulation studies like CSIRO's work which show that it's still cheaper than nuclear after you account for everything.
  - gpm 6mo ago
    > But not in grid storage. That is still incredibly expensive. The price of grid storage is absolutely falling exponentially with respect to time.
    - UltraSane 6mo ago
      Please provide proof
      - gpm 6mo ago
        See the first graph on this page for example: https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
        nradov 6mo ago
        Batteries are only one of many inputs needed for grid storage.
        gpm 6mo ago
        Batteries utterly dominate the cost of grid storage... everything else is a rounding error. You're welcome to go find your own data of course, you'll struggle to find more direct numbers because significant grid storage has only become affordable in the last few years.
        UltraSane 6mo ago
        I will admit you are right when someone installs a grid scale battery with 7 days of storage at at least 100MW of output

energy123 6mo ago

The solution mix needs to be tailored the location. Non-tropical equatorial countries don't have meaningful seasonality, so they don't need seasonal storage. For countries far north of the equator, it's more challenging, but there are multiple tools to address this, including: over-building so you have enough in winter, using wind which is seasonally negatively correlated with solar, importing power over HVDC, and diversifying wind spatially to reduce correlations which drop more than linearly in distance. For small countries very far away from the equator that have highly variable insolation and limited geography to decorrelate, nuclear may be better. But it cannot be asserted a priori without a simulation study tailored to the specifics of that location. When I said that nuclear is bad, I am talking in generalities about the common case (United States) at current market prices. The paper that you linked is old, we are dealing with exponential change in the price of storage and solar.

UltraSane 6mo ago
"over-building so you have enough in winter" This makes wind and solar much more expensive to the point where nuclear is cheaper. " we are dealing with exponential change in the price of storage and solar." But not in grid storage. That is still incredibly expensive.
- energy123 6mo ago
  > "over-building so you have enough in winter" This makes wind and solar much more expensive to the point where nuclear is cheaper. No it doesn't. Why do you just say that? There are simulation studies like CSIRO's work which show that it's still cheaper than nuclear after you account for everything.
- gpm 6mo ago
  > But not in grid storage. That is still incredibly expensive. The price of grid storage is absolutely falling exponentially with respect to time.
  - UltraSane 6mo ago
    Please provide proof
    - gpm 6mo ago
      See the first graph on this page for example: https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
      - nradov 6mo ago
        Batteries are only one of many inputs needed for grid storage.
        gpm 6mo ago
        Batteries utterly dominate the cost of grid storage... everything else is a rounding error. You're welcome to go find your own data of course, you'll struggle to find more direct numbers because significant grid storage has only become affordable in the last few years.
      - UltraSane 6mo ago
        I will admit you are right when someone installs a grid scale battery with 7 days of storage at at least 100MW of output