This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Some key insights from the article:
Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.
As others have said this is for Las Vegas which receives wayyy more sun than the average place. But the other misleading part is they looked at 20 years which is close to the life cycle for solar/batteries and not even half the life of nuclear
From the dot graph, it implies that las Vegas is one of the worse options? And Birmingham is somehow best?
Not sure I'm reading that right?
My understanding of that graph is how do you flatten peak energy demands, Birmingham is flat and throughout the year because you have some parts of the year where you need very little battery capacity and other parts where you need a lot. Las Vegas basically always needs a lot because of how hot it gets they end up with huge amounts of peak energy usage
Fair point but nuclear will probably always have the disadvantage of initial cost and time to market. It's a huge risk for investors and public officials.
That is the main criticism of nuclear, it should hopefully get better with Westinghouse’s AP1000 receiving full approval and being built all across China so as long as we continue to use the same design it can start to be mass produced instead of making all the parts as one offs that are much more expensive and time consuming
Not where I live. By far. Not to mention that it doesn't even cover winter months at all. Battery or no battery it doesn't cover even the usage most of the time when the sun is out, let alone charge the battery.
Edit: care to explain the downvote?
See and this is why we need to subsidize poor old coal. It can't compete without it. Won't someone think of the miners! /s
Coal has long been unprofitable, and nuclear has always needed huge state funding (you get weapons as the byproduct of nuclear power, hence the subsidies). Until it beats gas it still isn't cheap enough imo. Gas of course is still massively subsidised too though, and that's where we need to continue to work: our policy makers need to end fossil fuel subsidies
Look at the other line on the graph. Solar alone, covering up to 60% of energy use, is already cheaper than gas in Las Vegas. Sure, other places will have their own lower numbers, but until we achieve this threshold, we’re just a bunch of reactionaries captured by current business owners. If anyone actually believed in the free market, we’d expect it to trend to that line
I work in this field. I'm trying to change these numbers! We are heading the right direction is the good news. China may well save us all with cheaper panels and battery manufacturing. And if 97% reduces our emissions even 50% on todays emissions then we can start talking about actually meeting some climate targets.
So this is all good news, but as I also said: I work in this field and know we have a long way to go yet. There also isn't a single answer. Batteries, smart grids, grid-interconnects, efficiencies, supply mixes, demand offsetting; power is the best thing in the world to work in right now, it touches sooo many aspects of humanity and is changing so fast!
power is the best thing in the world to work in right now, it touches sooo many aspects of humanity and is changing so fast!
100%
97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.
It sound impressive, until you read it's Las Vegas. In places like Germany you have several weeks per year with neither enough sun nor wind. With backup power like gas turbines which run few weeks per year you have to subsidize the operators. And if you want run them on green hydrogen, massively overbuild the renewable capacity so that you can fill up gas storage during summertime.
The point is if 97% of the energy is cheaper... Then you would have to pay more than coal for 3%. Which you could use any other form to supplement that, or just pay more for that 3% as the prices keep dropping and it will be below it soon. Countries use more than one source of energy. Whether you use a nuclear plant, hydro, geothermal, wind, or even gas/coal to supplement that 3% until it becomes cheaper (likely in the next 3 years).. and then we'll just burn off the extra energy in useful tasks hopefully. You could do anything with it. Shit hook it up the pumps and lift water up into towers and tell people if we have to much energy we need to burn off you'll get extra water pressure for your showers or something. Use it for desalinization of saltwater to send to areas in a drought. Can power the shipping to get it there as well. Idk, there's always something useful we need energy for.
(Note those numbers were just for Vegas though, so it could be 20% your trying to supplement for now)
Then get it from the sources that already exist. 97% coverage is a great milestone.
Funny enough lots of people hate that. Lots of people have binary thinking, it's either 100% coal or 100% solar.
Yeah, they do, and they pretend to be wise adults while doing it. Like they're the only ones who thought of this.
EVs, too. No, we don't have to wait until they can all do 1000 miles and charge in 5 minutes. 350 miles and 20 minute 10-80% charge is fine for the vast majority of the market.
97% is great (though that is just for vegas) but it is still a long way from enough. Its a truism of availability that each 9 of uptime is more difficult to get to than the last, i.e. 99.9% is significantly more difficult/expensive than 99%
Then get it from the sources that already exist.
The problem here is that you cant simultaneously say "Solar is so much better than everything else we should just build it" and "we'll just use other sources to cover the gaps". Either you calculate the costs needed to get solar up to very high availability or you advocate for mixed generation.
None of which is to say that solar shouldnt be deployed at scale, it should. We should be aware of its limitations howver and not fall prey to hype.
What you do is get weather data for sunlight and wind. The two combine to cover some of the lull in the other. From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough. Double that as a safety factor, and that's how much battery you need.
Doing this is by far the cheapest way to get to 95% clean energy everywhere. That would be a total game changer.
From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.
The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.
The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.
It's not that bad. This is an actual technique in use, and it drastically decreases how much storage you need.
The biggest problem has been convincing capitalism to do it. They've been building solar like nuts because that's the cheapest per MW of anything on simple Excel spreadsheets. More mathematical nuance would show that if everyone does this, it's just going to cause overproduction and wasted potential on very sunny days. You need all three, and toss in some hydro and geothermal, as well.
This is still more polluting to mine than going nuclear, even accounting for nuclear waste.
shhh!
how can we develop a whole new market to make the rich richer if you keep bringing those kinds of facts in here?
What's the power source that doesn't do that? How do I advocate for it?
Firewood from your own forest is the only one and it's carbon neutral too. This is meant more as a joke but still.
Do you have a source for that claim? Genuine question.
My intuition is that the types of impact are widely different, so hard to reduce to a single number that can be compared.
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
I'm using table 1.
PV panels alone produce 43g/kWh, batteries 33.
Nuclear (light-water or pressurized) are at 12.
We're talking complete life cycle analyses.
To tack onto that: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source
When you account for land use in the entire life cycle from mining resources to disposal at end of life cycle, nuclear uses a quarter of the land of rooftop cadmium panels and a tenth of silicon panels.
Offshore wind is the only thing that gets close and even that has ecological and commercial concerns.
If you're pro-stable and sustainable ecological systems, nuclear based power grid is a no brainer.
yeah at a certain point it becomes a trade-off between "no geopolitical dependence on uranium" and "no geopolitical dependence on something that is currently produced in china, but could be produced anywhere if we tried hard enough"
Yet breeder plants would be even more sustainable in theory, yet if anyone tries to research them right now and doesn't already have nuclear bombs they may fall into the same situation Iran just did.
Less fuel use, Less waste. Requires more technological testing/improvements long term, but everyone is worried about people weaponizing higher enrichment uranium from an outside perspective.. I could be wrong
Even for offshore wind, you gotta add the necessary battery capacity for a reliable power grid...
He is probably referring to the small amount of nuclear waste that is actually produced per watt of power, it is a lot more dangerous if you are in direct contact, but it is surprisingly easy to store safely, and remove all environmental impact. The biggest environmental issue with nuclear is the mining and enriching, both of which are realistically too small to factor in.
I found this article going into more depth nuclear waste .
No, none of that has much to do with CO2 output besides transportation.
Nuclear power needs a lot of concrete. Concrete releases a lot of CO2 during production. It does eventually reabsorb it as it cures over a decade or two. IIRC, it might even be CO2 net negative eventually.
