|
MightyBigMinus posted:wait i thought the problem was dispatchability Except it wont. Rarely do solar farms hit more than 40% of their rated capacity and even in our wildest dreams the storage is not there. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 21, 2022 |
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except is wont. Rarely do solar farms hit more than 40% of their rated capacity and even in our wildest dreams the storage is not there. The storage not there? Lake Mead's emptying out, obviously we use overbuilt solar in order to pump water from the Mississippi so Lake Mead functions as a giant battery. It also provides loads of water for California's water problems. I'm sorry
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Better add ableist after I call that author certifiably insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Opinion: Nuclear Power Invaded The Capitol On January 6th And I Have The Receipts To Prove It by Rand Ian Plant
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
NYT Opinion Nuclear Power Chuds Are Mucking Up Energy Policy Progress Yes, Somehow I Think Fossil Fuel Baseload Is Weirdly Preferable And Somehow Less Dangerous--Or I Refuse To Acknowledge It As The Alternative At All by Deesi N Genyous July 20th, 2022 417.4 ppm CO2 Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
"It's sexist that women suffer worse side effects from radiation " is an amazing take
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:"It's sexist that women suffer worse side effects from radiation " is an amazing take I'm going to give the article a read-through, but I just want to put here first that "Fails to address radioactivity from fossil energy" and "ignores or deflects from fossil energy as necessary, observed-in-the-real-world-right-now alternative baseline" are on my bingo board
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Pander posted:Better add ableist after I call that author certifiably insane. Nah, she just knows what pays her bills. I don’t know if she is any relation to the Paul Gunter who founded the organisation she works for. But when asked why he protested nuclear and not coal, he once said: quote:“Because that is not what I get paid to do. If you want to pay me to protest coal, I will.”. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/beyond-nuclear-financials-and-funding.html https://beyondnuclear.org/about/ A single billionaire with a casual donation to a cause fashionable in 1970 can create a self-sustaining fund legally unable to consider any contrary evidence or arguments. And one that will keep on paying people’s salaries up to the point of civilisation collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/06/16/us-grid-scale-energy-storage-quadruples/ So the prospect of scaling up what South Australia is becoming more of a possibility?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:I think energy storage is really going to grow by leaps and bounds over the next fifty. crazy number of approaches. not all of them are going to be any kind of chemical battery. Weights on cables and the railroad thing are interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
We started building all of these nuclear power plants in the 1950s, and according to these charts CO2 emissions have grown exponentially since then. I think it's clear that nuclear power is to blame
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
Pretty funny coincidence that before nuclear power we didn't have all of these school shootings
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 08:03
|
|
|
A question. It is my understanding that the rated capacity for nuclear power is negatively affected to a degree in the summer due to the rise of water temperature in adjacent rivers/lakes/sea. How much does this affect energy production realistically in a country like France? Dante80 fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 08:41
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:A question. It is my understanding that the rated capacity for nuclear power is negatively affected to a degree in the summer due to the rise of water temperature in adjacent rivers/lakes/sea. Significantly, though not as as significantly as the underinvestment and problems with corrosion adding on-top in France's case. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threaten-frances-already-tight-power-supply-2022-07-15/
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 08:58
|
|
|
What I say may sound completely stupid. Would it make sense to install a water cooling system in plants that are affected by this? I'm guessing that climate change is not going to make summer milder, moving forward. In other words, would spending electricity to keep the water coming back to the river/lake/sea cooler result in a net positive due to the plant not having to throttle down its production?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 09:28
|
|
|
The throttling is for ecological reasons, not due to some limitation of the reactor. There are alternative ways of dealing with the hot water output, namely the iconic cooling towers, that avoid this problem. Yes, that means they decided not to build these towers originally in favour of dumping the water straight into the river. A cost saved upfront that has future consequences. Smiling Demon fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 09:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except it wont. Rarely do solar farms hit more than 40% of their rated capacity and even in our wildest dreams the storage is not there. Are you making the claim that the levelized cost of electricity numbers need to be penalized by the capacity factor of the technology, because the number doesn't take it into account? I don't think that that is true. Harold Fjord posted:This, for example, is massive and unfalsifiable strawman. Maybe there was one idiot who said something like this but it does not really reflect the thread and it is being brought up in obvious bad faith. Read who this guy is replying to in his posts. I'd also recommend reading the rest of this posters' posts--he seems pretty well informed and posts about topics more varied than the usual grumbling about underinvestment in nuclear electricity, misguided environmentalists, the fossil fuel lobby, unproductive regulations & red tape placed on nuclear power, etc. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3505076&userid=55074#post444709019 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3505076&userid=55074#post444710449
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 11:53
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:The throttling is for ecological reasons, not due to some limitation of the reactor. There are alternative ways of dealing with the hot water output, namely the iconic cooling towers, that avoid this problem. The affected plants do have cooling towers. I'm pretty sure most french nuclear plants have them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Are you making the claim that the levelized cost of electricity numbers need to be penalized by the capacity factor of the technology, because the number doesn't take it into account? I don't think that that is true. No Im saying that storage as a solution to the gaps created by intermittent energy sources is nowhere near a solved problem. And Im also saying that quoting capacity factors for renewables without actually addressing the evidence that its nowhere near ehat he is throwing around is telling half truths. If you are aelling renewables and telling people it will output 100% of its nameplate even at peak you are full of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 12:21
|
|
|
Zlodo posted:The affected plants do have cooling towers. I'm pretty sure most french nuclear plants have them. Yeah, I'll freely admit didn't check the information on the specific french plants. That said, the purpose of the cooling towers is indeed to cool the outgoing water and their absence has been notable in several cases elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No Im saying that storage as a solution to the gaps created by intermittent energy sources is nowhere near a solved problem. I don't think that the capacity factor of solar PV was really material to his point. Even with the non-ideal capacity factor of solar PV electricity, it is very inexpensive electricity. MightyBigMinus was saying that solar+short term storage to get it from the middle of the day to peak demand in the evening is already at the same cost as nuclear and the price is still dropping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't think that the capacity factor of solar PV was really material to his point. Even with the non-ideal capacity factor of solar PV electricity, it is very inexpensive electricity. And there's the problem: Appealing to 'cheap' as a solution and ignoring actual capacity factor. The two things you just compared when it comes to capacity factor are in no way comparable. Nuclear is more expensive, but it operates 24/7 for up to 18 months at a time. And no, short term storage is nowhere near capable of bridging the gap, we literally demonstrated that through multiple graphs in this thread, so either you are ignoring them or you are pushing an agenda. Renewables without a reliable baseload are not helping us towards the goal of getting fossil fuels out of the energy mix. mobby_6kl posted:I found the SA data. Yeah they have 100% renewable days sometimes. And other days they have 100% gas days lol. This is the problem: Anybody pushing 'storage' as a near term solution is actually pushing a future solution. We both do not have enough of it and are unlikely to be able to scale anywhere near it anytime soon. At this rate it makes more sense to build expensive nuclear with a lifetime of 50+ years versus future storage tech which is both largely unproven at scale and largely ignoring the lack of both materials and availability of it. And I'm gonna repeat this: Appealing to the 'cheapness' while ignoring capacity factors is setting yourself up for failure. Cheap will not stop climate change. Worrying about our budget in a time of existential crisis is a laughably spiteful thing. How much is the climate worth to you? How much is our environment? Oh, only worth the cheap stuff? Why? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you are aelling renewables and telling people it will output 100% of its nameplate even at peak you are full of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:hey careful man people have been known to get sixxers for strawmanning this hard in this thread, you wouldn't want a mod to see that Its not a strawman: Your graphic didn't include any capacity factors, so it has to assume nameplate output. Where did you demonstrate otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
I don't think that the intermittency of solar & wind have become an issue preventing the buildout of the technology in the US. I don't believe that the utility companies have an ideological commitment to wind & solar--the current & predicted future buildout of these technologies is predicated on their low cost (& future predicted cost improvements) and not some ideological commitment to the technology. For example, the EIA predicts that the US will go from currently being a few percent solar powered to 20% solar powered in 2050, and this prediction is not predicated on e.g. a massive government subsidy picking winner and loser technologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't think that the intermittency of solar & wind have become an issue preventing the buildout of the technology in the US. How's that gone for Germany, again? While nobody here is bemoaning renewables having an increasing share of energy generation (least of all me) you are missing the point: They have yet to fully offset fossil baseload anywhere significant. Even by EIA's numbers, that leave 80% of the original intact. But let's get to those government subsidies? Are you saying those are bad things? That we should avoid expensive projects like nuclear because of them? I'm still waiting for a good example of a Renewables Only strategy that can meet the actual growing demand AND offset fossil generation. Not a single person in this thread is saying we should not do renewables, what were saying is being cheap is not the upside you are claiming it is, because it assumes we shouldn't do expensive projects BECAUSE there is cheap stuff available. That's dangerous thinking. By all means, do cheap renewables, but ALSO do expensive nuclear that can actually offset the demand we need fossil fuels for. You can do both. And frankly both should be government subsidized. silence_kit posted:I don't think that the intermittency of solar & wind have become an issue preventing the buildout of the technology in the US. We're talking about storage. Not the renewables themselves. Storage isn't there, and isn't growing at any rate to have a meaningful impact anytime soon. And the best storage methods (which are not batteries) are things like air/water storage and both come at a significant premium of geographic availability or even resource availability in an increasingly drought stricken world. The storage is the key reason renewables alone is not really a feasible solution. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not a strawman: Your graphic didn't include any capacity factors, so it has to assume nameplate output. Where did you demonstrate otherwise? capacity factors for batteries? wtf are you talking a bout
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:capacity factors for batteries? wtf are you talking a bout https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2021/utility-scale_battery_storage#:~:text=for%20all%20scenarios.-,Capacity%20Factor,2%2F24%20%3D%200.083). quote:Future Projections: Future projections are based on the same literature review data that informs (Cole et al., 2021) , which generally used the median of published cost estimates to develop a Moderate Technology Cost Scenario and the minimum values to develop an Advanced Technology Cost Scenario. However, as the battery pack cost is anticipated to fall more quickly than the other cost components (which is similar to the recent history of PV system costs), the battery pack cost reduction is taken from (Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), 2019) and (Frith, 2020) and reduced more quickly. This tends to make the longer-duration batteries (e.g., 10 hours ) decrease more quickly while short duration (e.g., 2 hours) decrease less quickly into the future. All durations trend toward a common trajectory as battery pack costs decrease into the future. Batteries are not just an on/off thing with constant output, and you cannot drain them to 100% of their state value and they degrade at a constant rate with every discharge. Batteries have a capacity factor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How's that gone for Germany, again? IDK, I’m an American, not German. I don’t follow German politics. Interestingly, multiple German posters have come into the thread and have posted that the non-Germans here have kind of misrepresented the situation there. They have stopped posting recently because they kept on getting probated for their posts in this thread. CommieGIR posted:But let's get to those government subsidies? Are you saying those are bad things? That we should avoid expensive projects like nuclear because of them? You kind of implied that the only reason why anyone would be interested in those PV+short term storage setups is due to an ideological commitment to solar. I replied that I don’t believe that the American utility companies are stupid, have ideological blinders on, or are compelled to pick solar due to a massive subsidy—they are simply picking the most economical technology for the application.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2021/utility-scale_battery_storage#:~:text=for%20all%20scenarios.-,Capacity%20Factor,2%2F24%20%3D%200.083). Are you trying to claim that utilities and the people who make levelized cost of electricity models don’t account for the fact that batteries degrade? Maybe they are that stupid IDK but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
If we are going zero fossil fuel economy that would involve also replacing every joule of energy we currently use in every ICE everywhere, not just cars with electric motors. And we need to have completed this conversion about 20 years ago, so basically as fast as we can possibly do it. For people who say we don't need nuclear power, how are we going to account for that additional demand on energy generation when we are already seeing that a no fossil/no nuclear hydro/wind/solar with some kind of energy storage plan is struggling to provide full grid power today at today's requirements without gas and coal backstopping it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Dameius posted:For people who say we don't need nuclear power, how are we going to account for that additional demand on energy generation when we are already seeing that a no fossil/no nuclear hydro/wind/solar with some kind of energy storage plan is struggling to provide full grid power today at today's requirements without gas and coal backstopping it? If you meant “on demand” instead of “demand on” here, nuclear is pretty uneconomical for that task. When you run a nuclear power plant at full capacity, it generates very expensive electricity because the power plant was built at great cost. When you hold the nuclear power plant in reserve, and run it only when needed to fill the gaps (at partial capacity), you’re making what was already very expensive electricity even more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Are you trying to claim that utilities and the people who make levelized cost of electricity models don’t account for the fact that batteries degrade? e: Grid storage is nowhere near to the point it can make up for solar and wind's variability. This is necessary for solar and wind to replace baseload fossil fuel sources. We need to do this yesterday, and nuclear is far more doable and exists now. Can you literally just answer the question: How do you think these problems can be addressed, given these absolutely factual constraints? cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Are you trying to claim that utilities and the people who make levelized cost of electricity models don’t account for the fact that batteries degrade? Maybe they have a financial incentive to sell this? That is more likely why the models might not reflect actual capability of replacing baseload. silence_kit posted:IDK, I’m an American, not German. I don’t follow German politics. Interestingly, multiple German posters have come into the thread and have posted that the non-Germans here have kind of misrepresented the situation there. They have stopped posting recently because they kept on getting probated for their posts in this thread. Do you think I probed em? If not, don't bring it up as a cudgel. The problem was they repeated claims without a lot of evidence supporting it. silence_kit posted:You kind of implied that the only reason why anyone would be interested in those PV+short term storage setups is due to an ideological commitment to solar. I replied that I don’t believe that the American utility companies are stupid, have ideological blinders on, or are compelled to pick solar due to a massive subsidy—they are simply picking the most economical technology for the application. They have an incentive to be cheap and push newer tech because there's subsidies in it for them. That's really most of their motivation for it. Again: Why are you arguing for 'economical', you are talking about a country largely now forced to revitalize their coal industry because they 'economically' put themselves into a corner energy wise and another country is taking advantage of that to pressure them. Economical does not always equal good, just as cheap is generally the opposite of quality or capable. Its amazing you guys keep going back to that same argument. cat botherer posted:CommieGIR said that that graph doesn't account for capacity factors. It doesn't. You are right that utilities sure do, which might go a long ways to explain why battery storage is not a thing outside of a few heavily-publicized smaller-scale tests. This is the long and short of it: There is no grid storage capability deployed today capable of wholly offsetting baseload and allowing renewables to cover the gap entirely. That's the issue. Silence_kit, do you agree that renewables would benefit from partnering with nuclear rather than, say, natural gas? If so, what is the motivation to argue for cost factor rather than addressing the climate needs. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:You are right that utilities sure do, which might go a long ways to explain why battery storage is not a thing outside of a few heavily-publicized smaller-scale tests. Are you saying that it is NOT standard practice for new solar farms to be built with short term battery storage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Are you saying that it is NOT standard practice for new solar farms to be built with short term battery storage? It is not, though some are requiring it. But again, they are nowhere near scale or uptime required to offset the plants they need to replace, why do you guys keep repeating this trope? If this is true, we should have a lot more battery storage; why do we not have battery storage matching solar capacity then? There's 139 GW of Solar as of 2020, we do not have 139 GW of Battery to match. 2025 is the expected date for meeting 148GW of Battery storage. Total world energy usage of just electricity is 25,000+ TWh. So assuming consumption trends continue as they are, Grid Storage is not catching up anywhere near where it needs to be. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you meant “on demand” instead of “demand on” here, nuclear is pretty uneconomical for that task. When you run a nuclear power plant at full capacity, it generates very expensive electricity because the power plant was built at great cost. When you hold the nuclear power plant in reserve, and run it only when needed to fill the gaps (at partial capacity), you’re making what was already very expensive electricity even more expensive. No I mean we have to replace the entirety of the gasoline for internal combustion engine infrastructure over to our grid if we want to go zero carbon. Which means our energy generation grid will need to produce even more power on top of what it would need to do just to keep up with "normal" growth. Currently we have nowhere in the world that has hydro/solar/wind only grids that can operate without the backstopping of carbon generation in the form of coal or gas. My question is, how do you propose we deal with this extra demand on our energy grid from converting every internal combustion engine over to electric motors without nuclear in the mix?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again: Why are you arguing for 'economical', you are talking about a country largely now forced to revitalize their coal industry because they 'economically' put themselves into a corner energy wise and another country is taking advantage of that to pressure them. Price matters because nuclear needs to compete in the market and there appears to be little politicsl interest in changing that reality. Yes, we should change it but we have not done so and it does not look likely that we will do so in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Dameius posted:No I mean we have to replace the entirety of the gasoline for internal combustion engine infrastructure over to our grid if we want to go zero carbon. Which means our energy generation grid will need to produce even more power on top of what it would need to do just to keep up with "normal" growth. Yup, the other fun part: Assuming Electric Cars will be the norm of transport in the US especially (because we refuse to do the right thing and expand public transit and light/heavy rail), that's all the more energy you need to generate. Like a LOT of extra energy. Owling Howl posted:Price matters because nuclear needs to compete in the market and there appears to be little politicsl interest in changing that reality. Yes, we should change it but we have not done so and it does not look likely that we will do so in the near future. Construction is expensive, the energy produced, however, is very cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:01
|
|