|
CommieGIR posted:The inverse being true: There is little evidence that battery deployments will ever meet or outpace our energy demand, so that also seems like a dead end. Might as well give up now, because we wouldn't want to invest in long term projects regardless of the real, proven benefit. Yeah agreed. Overbuilding batteries isn't a great solution when the batteries in question only last 2-4 hours and are designed with summer loads and peaker gas plants in mind. They're great for what they do, but they're not going to replace power plants any more than your kettle is going to replace your hot water boiler.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
DTurtle posted:To be honest, I'm not too versed in all the subtleties of green hydrogen. It's not a thing. Hydrogen comes from steam reformation of natural gas. If you had abundant nuclear power, you could get it from cracking seawater. If you have abundant renewables, you could use hydrogen to load-shift, cracking seawater into hydrogen when the wind blows and burning the hydrogen when the wind doesn't. But in no case is it a method of generating power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The inverse being true: There is little evidence that battery deployments will ever meet or outpace our energy demand, so that also seems like a dead end. Might as well give up now, because we wouldn't want to invest in long term projects regardless of the real, proven benefit.  Source Obviously at some point that will slow down, but we don't know at what rate of new storage that will be. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's not a thing. Hydrogen comes from steam reformation of natural gas. quote:But in no case is it a method of generating power. quote:If you had abundant nuclear power, you could get it from cracking seawater. If you have abundant renewables, you could use hydrogen to load-shift, cracking seawater into hydrogen when the wind blows and burning the hydrogen when the wind doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Yes but that is less likely to happen than a majority renewable grid. Popular opposition and NIMBYism are frustrating but they are real world factors that gets priced in to any project. Sticking to a purely technical analysis and ignoring politics is a pointless exercise. So it sounds like either we overcome popular opposition and NIMBYism or climate change kills us all. I don't understand this total lack of imagination where we have to worry about how poo poo works right now. Fixing this problem, if there was the actual political will to do it, would involve solutions mankind has not yet tried. To put it another way, they're not gonna be worried about popular opposition and NIMBYism when they're blacking out the sun to buy the Earth a few more decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Thank you. That is exactly the plan. Green hydrogen isn't the plan, the plan is to rebrand Russian fossil gas as "clean energy". Europe is not even close to being able to supply its current electricity needs with renewables, much less electrify its transportation, heating, and industry, then start creating green hydrogen at 30% efficiency. On the other hand, there's a rainbow of "transitional hydrogen types" available from gas, oil, and coal that the fossil fuel companies are itching to sell (and collect carbon subsidies on like biomass). It's greenwashing, pure and simple. There is an absolute ton of this thread dedicated to the rise and fall of hydrogen over the last 10 years. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So it sounds like either we overcome popular opposition and NIMBYism or climate change kills us all. If the only alternative to immediate massive construction of nuclear is for climate change to kill us all then climate change will kill us all because we're not currently building or planning on building any appreciable amount of nuclear in the near future. The perfect ideal scenario is for the government to nationalize the energy sector and start building all the nuclear. Also they should give us UHC, UBI, free college and massively build out public housing and transportation. The government should do many things that it is not going to do unless the political landscape dramatically changes. Currently it looks like we will have very modest growth in nuclear and a lot more additions of wind and solar. Wind/solar costs have not plateaued yet and may not do so for some years. Green hydrogen plays into this since we will need to produce it for industry, shipping, planes and for heating in some places. Australia have quite large projects in the works but there's projects in Europe as well. That's the trajectory we're on. It's not ideal and we most likely can't get to zero emissions. Maybe the political landscape will change some time in the future and we can get more nuclear additions but that's not where we are now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
In 1985, 35.9% of global electricity came from low-carbon sources. By 2021, that had skyrocketed up to 38.26%. If we're judging the future by how well we're doing, then we'll reach our 2040 net zero goal by approximately 2964. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20almost%20two%2Dthirds,and%20nuclear%20energy%20for%2010.4%25.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:In 1985, 35.9% of global electricity came from low-carbon sources. By 2021, that had skyrocketed up to 38.26%. If we're judging the future by how well we're doing, then we'll reach our 2040 net zero goal by approximately 2964. “progress was slow because nuclear output declined at a time when renewables have been growing.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Obviously, energy storage is still a growing market. I can't imagine the energy demand growing faster than this: That is wholly insufficient, again, we generate and consume hundred of terrawatts hours of just electricity a year. You are talking about adding a couple hundred gigawatts of storages. That's not enough in any sense of the term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah ok that French site lets you download the actual hourly data for the past year (though 2021 is 404  ) so I had to gently caress around with it of course.If they went full Germany and shut down the nukes, it seems that they'd need to increase the solar installed capacity by 5x and wind by 11x to average a monthly surplus. Then to make sure you never actually run out... 30,000,000 mWh of storage capacity. It's getting very late so I might've hosed something up, but seems like a lot!  Obviously there could be different optimal permutations depending on what's most cost effective etc., and this allows no imports as well. E: oops, seems like the data points are every 30 minutes, so just 15,000,000 mWh? mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Green hydrogen isn't the plan, the plan is to rebrand Russian fossil gas as "clean energy". Europe is not even close to being able to supply its current electricity needs with renewables, much less electrify its transportation, heating, and industry, then start creating green hydrogen at 30% efficiency. On the other hand, there's a rainbow of "transitional hydrogen types" available from gas, oil, and coal that the fossil fuel companies are itching to sell (and collect carbon subsidies on like biomass). It's greenwashing, pure and simple. There is an absolute ton of this thread dedicated to the rise and fall of hydrogen over the last 10 years. quote:EU Hydrogen Strategy (July 2020) Kaal posted:In 1985, 35.9% of global electricity came from low-carbon sources. By 2021, that had skyrocketed up to 38.26%. If we're judging the future by how well we're doing, then we'll reach our 2040 net zero goal by approximately 2964. CommieGIR posted:That is wholly insufficient, again, we generate and consume hundred of terrawatts hours of just electricity a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Yes but that is less likely to happen than a majority renewable grid. Popular opposition and NIMBYism are frustrating but they are real world factors that gets priced in to any project. Sticking to a purely technical analysis and ignoring politics is a pointless exercise. A plurality/majority renewable has always the goal. We can get non-hydro renewables to 40% with little issue. It's just how we get the remaining 60% that is the issue. The antinuclear folks think that if we just overbuild with enough non-hydro renewables the market will provide an energy storage solution. I don't have faith in the market and that wanting something really really really bad will end up making it happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And there is no state currently demonstrate a wind/solar only grid, sorry. Even South Australia which gets held up as an example is largely backed by gas peakers and the rest of Australia burns fossil fuels like its going out of style. Fossil fuels are going out of style in Australia. Coal assets are being written off, plant closures are being brought forward, new coal plants can't get funding. You've got an excellent point that renewables are backed by fossils, but if progress is moving from 80% yearly generation coming from coal, to 70% coming from renewables and 30% from gas, well I'll take it. Current trajectory is something like over 80% renewables by 2030, so we won't have long to see if it's achievable. Gas sure as hell isn't good or clean, but we're still burning brown coal ffs, which is only one step above wet newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Ultimately, I think there's little doubt that the same group of fossil fuel lobbyists that created Germany's failed Energiewende policies also promoted the "clean hydrogen" dream. The intent is clearly to hook Europe on Russian gas the same way that Germany is, with the rather empty promise that it will some day become low-carbon. But just as Germany's Putin-whispering was irresponsible foreign policy, converting all of Europe to fossil gas is irresponsible climate policy.quote:'Could Europe replace Russian gas with green hydrogen? Let's look at the numbers' Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj3951?cookieSet=1 This seems promising, extracting hydrogen from natural gas and capturing the carbon (CO2) at the same time, without having to add a lot of energy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Wibla posted:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj3951?cookieSet=1 Then comes the part where they only pretend to do part 2 and you get Blue Hydrogen.... ...which is what we already do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
i’m not reading the paper but it sounds like the company that popped up in some video i watched. they actually produce solid elemental carbon as a byproduct of their reaction which can just be put into blocks and done whatever with. it’s legitimately likely to be better than burning the ng directly but it’s still dinogas so i’m not holding my breath
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Nickel Iron batteries have lower energy density than Lithium, but since you don't really care about weight for terrestrial applications, some people use them for "power walls." They are extremely durable. 50 years easily. And they are simple, Edison actually invented them. The smaller market makes them a bit more pricey than the materials would warrant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 06:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148385931513856
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
Note to PG&E: On The Beach is a post nuclear apocalyptic novel, not a manual for storing nuclear wastes. On a more useful note: Don't some of the salt based reactors have the ability to run off these wastes and dramatically reduce the radioactivity of the materials?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 06:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Ultimately, I think there's little doubt that the same group of fossil fuel lobbyists that created Germany's failed Energiewende policies also promoted the "clean hydrogen" dream. The intent is clearly to hook Europe on Russian gas the same way that Germany is, with the rather empty promise that it will some day become low-carbon. But just as Germany's Putin-whispering was irresponsible foreign policy, converting all of Europe to fossil gas is irresponsible climate policy. As for that article: Widespread electrification and efficiency gains have been part of any push to reach high penetration of renewables. Of course it would be infeasible to replace all gas 1:1 with green hydrogen. Green hydrogen is supposed to be used where no other possibility is likely with regards to energy density, etc. So things like certain industrial processes, planes, large ships, longer term storage, etc. Also, it has long been a part of the EU‘s outlook that energy imports will continue to be necessary. Which is why there are constant talks with other countries around Europe with regards to developing green hydrogen infrastructure. CommieGIR posted:Then comes the part where they only pretend to do part 2 and you get Blue Hydrogen.... DTurtle fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
When it comes to the economics of energy production, I think you need to consider, for whom is it economical? The producer or the consumer? Wind in particular here in europe is cheap now to build and install and with the power crisis stemming from german choices and now the war in ukraine, it's really economical in terms of getting a fast return on investment. It's not so economical fore the consumers however because of intermittancy issues leading to lack of energy and thus record high electricity prices on average, while it can also have real lows. Until the fantasy tech of cheap large capacity storage is ready that's how it will be. Nuclear is the opposite, it's a lot less attractive for investors because it's a lot of money that will take a long time to yield returns, but it produces cheap power and reliably so, lowering the price on the market. This is good for the consumer, but bad for the producer. OL3s test output and promise of generation lowered market prices noticeably in finland this spring, and when it was delayed to december, prices raised another 30% and experts say that's how it will be until OL3 comes online. Historically in Sweden when they had all their reactors online they had an extremely environmentally friendly energy production in the form of nuclear and hydro, during this era they had some really cheap electricity, almost too cheap to meter one might say. Since then they have spent a lot of time moving away from this model, also deregulating heavily in the 90s, now they reap the rewards and the government did stuff like hand out emergency money last winter to help people pay their heating bills. I suppose one might also consider what's "economical" for the planet? I remember reading studies recently that wind and solar require more resources per kWh produced than nuclear, so producing power via wind and solar will require more raw materials than nuclear power. It's clear to me a huge part of tghe probvlems we face are because of trhe private sectors involvement in energy production and the marketization of electricity which skews incentives towards more expensive electricity. The free market producing lower prices is of course a fairy tale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 08:41
|
|
|
Oh hey; Silence_Kit, I see you dragged out Lazard to push your agenda that nuclear is expensive but you didn't get around to telling me why my below quick assessment analysis was wrong. e) link for convenience https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf Electric Wrigglies posted:Great link. The batteries with solar is less about load shifting and more about handling short term dips due to clouds from what I understand. Yes you can load shift on a great sunny day but to deliver speced power it is cheaper to only build so many cells (say 10 MW) and cover output dips with batteries (a few MWhr) then to overbuild the solar plant (say 30 MW, no battery) to guarantee speced power (the 10MW as for the solar and battery) no matter the cloud intermittency. E) and to add, the reason that they do this (as opposed to just building the 10 MW no battery) is that grid operators are now getting snaky on renewables just lumping unconditioned and unpredictable power onto the grid and writing more certainty into connection conditions. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
Dameius posted:I don't have a complaint. I have a question. I feel like I’m in some kind of initiation ritual and am being told to recite an oath so I can join La Cosa Nostra or a cult or something. Nuclear power is dying in the US. Nuclear power plants generate very expensive electricity, and in a hypothetical future world where intermittent renewables generate a large fraction of the US’ electricity, nuclear power plants would be forced to run at lower and lower capacity factors, making what was already expensive nuclear electricity even more expensive. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 12:31
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Nuclear power is dead in the US. Nuclear power plants generate very expensive electricity, and in a hypothetical future world where intermittent renewables generate a large fraction of the US’ electricity, nuclear power plants would be forced to run at lower and lower capacity factors, making what was already expensive nuclear electricity even more expensive. I'm not going to bother commenting on your dig on nuclear, but I will comment on the rest, because I have the engineering experience to comment on those things. We can use excess generation capacity to generate green hydrogen, or run desalination plants that are setup to scale fresh water generation according to power availability. Both of these things can be done with existing industry solutions. CommieGIR posted:Then comes the part where they only pretend to do part 2 and you get Blue Hydrogen.... Nah, they've come up with something new that actually seems promising. Here's a translated article with more info, it should be readable even after being churned through google translate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 12:39
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Note to PG&E: You are thinking of a fast neutron reactor, and yes they do. Spent fuel is not waste.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 12:43
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:A number of points; When people make predictions that solar will be the fastest growing source of electricity in the US over the next 30 years, yes, they mean solar PV and not solar thermal. This thread has trashed Ivanpah and solar thermal in recent history. It has a habit of discussing dead/dying technologies over the more relevant ones. Yes, that is also a mantra of this thread--the high cost of nuclear electricity is not intrinsic to the technology. I think the posters in this thread desperately WANT that to be true, but that doesn't make it true. Why does everyone talk about wind/solar powering the entire US? Does that really matter? When the American utility companies make changes to the electrical power grid, it does not happen with a click of the mouse like in a game of Cities:Skylines. Solar & wind buildout isn't instant. No one is attempting to have solar and wind power the entire US. Yeah, running an old nuclear power plant can be economical. This is why the American utility companies do not immediately close all of their nuclear power plants. Of course this thread fixates on that one time where they didn't run that one American nuclear plant past its intended operating life and decommissioned it according to the original intended schedule, and uses it as evidence of conspiracy against the technology. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, running an old nuclear power plant can be economical. This is why the American utility companies do not immediately close all of their nuclear power plants. Of course this thread fixates on that one time where they didn't run that one American nuclear plant past its intended operating life and decommissioned it according to the original intended schedule, and uses it as evidence of conspiracy against the technology. Yeah, that's why Cuomo and groups ramped up political pressure to close it because it was the scheduled closure. Oh wait, it wasn't. The license was up for renewal and could've been renewed. Now New York is doubling down on Natural Gas. The plant could've easily been refurbished, but I guess American Utilities and political action groups know best. And let's go talk about Illinois, where American Utility companies attempted to force closure of their old nuclear plants prematurely. I thought you said they'd keep running them rather than immediately closing them? Thankfully the people of Illinois saw through that bullshit. Wibla posted:Nah, they've come up with something new that actually seems promising. Here's a translated article with more info, it should be readable even after being churned through google translate. The best place for natural gas is in the ground, we can easily source hydrogen from water without the whole 'carbon capture' rigamarole that is largely still just being pushed by those very same energy companies without a real feasible technical solution actually in place. Blue Hydrogen is a good example where they keep promising carbon capture but for the most part its business as usual. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Yet more strawmanning things nobody is saying. My favorite imaginary thing you (silence kit) decided to criticize above is around the video game reference, implying explicitly that you perceive that "this thread" expects things to happen "at the click of a mouse," where in fact everybody in this thread has their decades-long glasses on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I feel like I’m in some kind of initiation ritual and am being told to recite an oath so I can join La Cosa Nostra or a cult or something. I don't care, that's not what I'm asking you. Dameius posted: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 22, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:When people make predictions that solar will be the fastest growing source of electricity in the US over the next 30 years, yes, they mean solar PV and not solar thermal. This thread has trashed Ivanpah and solar thermal in recent history. It has a habit of discussing dead/dying technologies over the more relevant ones. I think this message simply ignores most of my points out of hand but anyway. ok you restate that nuclear is expensive when your own link demonstrated that it is in line with non-dispatchable power when out of peak generating periods before considering the cost of storage to make non-dispatchable useful for anything other than cutting the lunch of dispatchable power generators and cheaper than scalable dispatchable renewable (solar thermal) before it too goes through NIMBY resistance acceleration that seems to accompany any form of energy / heavy industry growth. This is before you get into the persistent and insistent resistance to nuclear pushing up all the costs. It is not going to halve the cost or anything like that but nuclear does not need to be cheaper - that's not the real issue, the issue is scaling and that is predominately limited by green movement promoted NIMBY at the current stage but would become technical (foundries, staff, inspectors) if NIMBY did not exist. That scale limitation is why hydro, wind, especially load matched solar (hot weather linked air con market) and others all should be part of the mix. If nuclear generation had a deterministic and predictable pathway to permitting, you bet your bottom dollar there would be investment. Some of the tollways don't have paybacks for 20 years on 10's of billions of dollars of investment. BHP tipped 7 billion into an underground shaft not scheduled to haul a rock for five years (gambling on long term potash prices and other producers coming to market). Investors do like long term investments. They don't like ones that have greenpeace ramraiding your facility and starting riots in 10s of cities over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
I think there is a fundamental disagreement on premises that is fueling a lot of the argument in this thread. If you believe we're going to break from historical patterns and spend whatever is necessary to reduce carbon in time to limit global warming then building more nuclear plants looks like a great option because its a proven way to provide baseload power without emissions. If you believe we're going to continue historical patterns instead, constructing additional nuclear plants looks like a terrible option. This is because new nuclear plants will take money from a limited government "renewable power" bucket that would otherwise go to a mix of transmission network, demand management, and storage projects that will reduce the required amount of fossil fuel generation more than the same amount of money spent on new nuclear plants would. Wind and PV solar are now so cheap that their buildout is going to continue regardless of what governments decide to do, but if there is no mechanism for that wind/solar power to get to consumers it is going to instead be used for less useful stuff like very inefficiently creating hydrogen or mining crypto.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
slorb posted:This is because new nuclear plants will take money from a limited government "renewable power" bucket that would otherwise go to a mix of transmission network, demand management, and storage projects that will reduce the required amount of fossil fuel generation more than the same amount of money spent on new nuclear plants would. That's not necessarily true, since nearly all governments do not fund Nuclear as Renewables, so the funding doesn't tend to come from the same budgetary bucket. Biden's nuclear bailout being a good example Another reason this is false is that renewables are not scaling at the same rate demand is increasing, the idea that we can only do one or the other is insane. We can easily do both renewables and nuclear. And for the energy density: No, renewables CANNOT match nuclear for both footprint, output, and capacity factor. There's very little that can even among fossil energy systems. But again, the idea that its one or the other is shortsighted.  Nuclear also is one of the few that can match its nameplate capacity daily. Combined with Renewables, Nuclear could easily offset fossil usage if built out. slorb posted:Wind and PV solar are now so cheap that their buildout is going to continue regardless of what governments decide to do, but if there is no mechanism for that wind/solar power to get to consumers it is going to instead be used for less useful stuff like very inefficiently creating hydrogen or mining crypto. Cheapness =/= good. Why is it everyone thinks cheap is somehow a saving grace? Where do we get this idea that we're going to offset subsidized fossil fuels with cheap renewables that cannot match the capacity factor of the fossil fuels you intend to target with them? We are not solving climate change on the cheap, and despite being cheap the amount required to offset the energy you are targeting for replacing is immense. And dont get me started on longevity, both wind and solar have ~10 year lifespans at best and tend to require frequent replacement. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Cheapness =/= good. Why is it everyone thinks cheap is somehow a saving grace? Because in the real world, resource constraints matter? This is obvious and I cannot understand your eagerness to handwave it away. Most of the "new" carbon dioxide emissions are coming from places like China and India. If the best solution you have there is that Indians pay something like ten times the upfront cost of a coal power plant for equivalent Mwh, it's much less likely to get done. If the private sector starts seeing positive NPVs for nuclear investments (like they already do for solar, in some applications) they'll start doing the work for you. So yeah, get costs down and the job gets a hell of a lot easier!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I feel like I’m in some kind of initiation ritual and am being told to recite an oath so I can join La Cosa Nostra or a cult or something. I'm sorry to quote you while you're on probation but you'll be back soon and this is still just you not answering the question. You don't have to say that the answer is nuclear, but you should just come out and say "we keep burning poo poo until we've built enough renewables" if that's your answer. If there's some third option I haven't thought of, maybe you can say that. Please stop blatantly dancing around the question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I feel like I’m in some kind of initiation ritual and am being told to recite an oath so I can join La Cosa Nostra or a cult or something. Who posts like this? Are you brain damaged?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
slorb posted:I think there is a fundamental disagreement on premises that is fueling a lot of the argument in this thread. I agree to some of CommieGIR that both can be done at the same time (and still get frustrated at the fixation on cheapness being wrong when wholistic grid lowest cost (inclusive of externalities) is absolutely the KPI to focus on) and I think you are onto a big reason of pushback on nuclear. Anti-nuclear sites themselves state as one of the reason why nuclear is not viable is because it will canibilise funding for their chosen pathway. Whether that is because they think along what your describe and strictly believe every dollar spent on nuclear is that much more carbon in the air or whether that is because like a lot of coal workers, anything that might take yer jerbs is anathema. In any event, historical patterns can be changed, the world went pro-nuclear to anti-nuclear in a generation. Germany may be going back to wholy hydrocarbon and renewable mix but Japan, France Finland, UK, China, India, S. Korea are all heading towards nuclear and renewables (and umming about the last bit so that stays carbon). And on the wind and PV so cheap, I believe a big part of their cheapness is because curtailment has not yet really been costed into their profiles. PV matching up with A/C load is great and really is cheap (not as cheap as solar hot water but is definitely hard to go past) but I would love to see a set load (say 100 MW) of overnight heating without carbon levelised cost of generation chart. If I understand right, It's 33 x 3 MW wind mills on a good night with carbon/nuclear back up but 264 windmills (8% wind) is 277 windmills (95% Avail) is 347 windmills ( 20% surplus that is evidently required) if it >99% confidence interval has to deliver without backstop. Straight away that 3 c a kwhr for wind when it gets to sell every kw is now 30 c a kwhr (33 windmill market / 347 total windmills required to meet that market reliably) due to curtailment. This is where batteries are meant to do fusion for renewables but what is the cost for batteries per /kwhr? Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Because in the real world, resource constraints matter? This is obvious and I cannot understand your eagerness to handwave it away. You're mistaking "internalized cost" for "resource constraints". Coal power is real god drat expensive when you consider the external costs, considerably more than nuclear power I'd wager. It's cheap to get a coal plant built, you pay the remaining costs and "costs" years later
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Rampant climate change is the cost of gas and coal, but weirdly lobbyists owned by those industries don't include that in their graphs
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 16:40
|
|
