7 ms·

These cost comparisons don't take into account reliability. Power is almost useless if it's not reliable. A large part of your monthly bill goes towards reliabl

by thebmax 11y ago

These cost comparisons don't take into account reliability. Power is almost useless if it's not reliable. A large part of your monthly bill goes towards reliablility and transport of power, not just the power itself. A 100% wind or solar grid would require an equal amount of backup gas or coal power in order to provide reliability which essentially doubles these cost estimates. Even now most wind and solar is considered a novelty to most grid operators because you can't take it into account for long term planning. In some cases (like Denmark or Quebec) there exists ample alternatives available for when the wind stops blowing but most jurisdictions don't have this. Considering how smart people in Silicon Valley are the level of ignorance around renewable energy and the'why don't we all use solar panels' mindset is crazy.

chadgeidel 11y ago
I don't disagree with your fundamental premise, but "would require an equal amount of backup power" sounds like hyperbole. I haven't read any proposal for "100% replacement" that doesn't take into account energy storage solutions. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question those solutions, but an equal amount of traditional power generation as backup seems excessive.
- thebmax 11y ago
  Case in point is a very cloudy day with no wind. Depending on where it is demand could be very high if it's cold out and heaters are running full blast. You will essentially need a full load supply to come from somewhere or you'll get rolling blackouts. Some regions can compensate with importing or hydro but otherwise you would have to power up the coal and gas. Batteries could maybe work in the future but again this would drastically increase the cost.
  - nl 11y ago
    Flow batteries dramatically change the cost calculations for energy storage, and are here now. Additionally, most areas are increasingly moving towards decentralised generation which changes the calculations too.
tokipin 11y ago
the obvious solution is batteries, which improve all sources of power generation including traditional ones by serving as support during peak times. in principle you only need <average energy used per house> stored per house during night time, which may be a much lower bar than it sounds. if the utilities serve a role later it may just be them acting as high-volume energy storage facilities, but even that might not really be necessary if individuals can make money by investing in extra batteries. i think once solar crosses a certain cultural/economic threshold it will just take over everything. it's just way, way too good. there's no other power source that even compares to the potential it already has. what's interesting is not whether it's going to take over everything, but what kind of economy/world you will have when electricity is orders of magnitude cheaper than it currently is.
- mightybyte 11y ago
  Batteries aren't the only solution here. Any kind of efficient energy storage will work. For example LightSail Energy has been working on compressed air storage for several years now.
  - bryanh 11y ago
    There is another interesting class of power storage called "pumped-storage hydroelectricity" [1] - for example - there is one in use in Missouri that actually burst in 2005 [2]. Li-ion batteries have a round-trip efficiency of 80-90% - pumped-storage has ~70-80%. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_...
  - thebmax 11y ago
    I'm all for innovation in storage and think there might be a breakthrough at some point. But this goes to the heart of it. Right now a fully renewable grid that matches what we currently have is not financially viable. Not saying it won't become so at some point but it's a high hurdle. All things considered having close to 100% reliable electricity in every home in America for less than ~$100/month is hard to compete with.
olau 11y ago
I don't think you framed it correctly. What matters is always matching the consumption curve. Due to high capital costs, that's really expensive to do with nuclear plants (that's why people talk about baseload, i.e. constant output). So you'd have to solve the same problem in an all-nuclear world - maybe the magnitude would be different, but's essentially the same problem. You could even say that the 'why don't we all use nuclear power plants' is a bit crazy. :)
- DennisP 11y ago
  That's why I think nuclear and solar are a good combination: nuclear baseload and solar for extra daytime demand. It won't match consumption perfectly, but it'll do better than either technology alone.
lyschoening 11y ago
A large enough HVDC grid would almost totally eliminate the need for backup power. There's always wind or sun somewhere and HVDC transmission losses are <5% per 1,000mi. It's possible to build a grid where pumped and battery storage alone can smoothen out any fluctuations.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  Then you'd need a global network for sun at night, which has correspondingly greater challenges in terms of coordination and "booting" it back up.
Klinky 11y ago
Scaling down power generation when demand is low is not something nuclear is good at. Battery or energy storage systems that could store excess power from the grid would help any sort of power generation technique become more efficient and reliable. There is a lot of hand waiving and fudging the numbers when it comes to the cost of nuclear. One-off proprietary designs, using proprietary fuel systems, using proprietary operational methodologies is not cost effective. Economies of scale are not in nuclear's favor, and even "at scale" you're looking at billions of dollars worth of investment before the first watt is produced. The need for large-scale waste transportation, storage and reprocessing is not a solved problem. The Nuclear Solves Everything™ thought process requires a lot of head-in-the-sand thinking.
- Estragon 11y ago
  > Scaling down power generation when demand is low is not something nuclear is good at. Isn't that what control rods do?
  - Klinky 11y ago
    They control the reaction within the reactor, and in newer reactors can be used to regulate load. France & Germany do have a load following system in place for their nuclear reactors. It's not a simple matter of turning off a reactor, as this is a large maintenance task. Various mechanisms and regulations have been developed to handle load following for a Nuclear plant. There are still negatives to doing this, such as reduced efficiency, additional operator training, and additional wear on control, fuel and the plant. Positives likely outweigh the negatives, but the reactor must be designed to do load following and regulations need to be in place to ensure it is done safely. It is another thing to consider when talking about the cost of nuclear.
- mikepurvis 11y ago
  As a species, we have been generating electricity by nuclear fission for 60 years, and in the process, have produced hundreds of thousands of tons of extraordinarily toxic waste. In all that time, no one has found a final resting place for it. Only one serious DGR has even begun construction— and that's Onkalo (Finland), set to begin receiving waste in 2020, should things go to plan. All that spent fuel is just sitting on the surface at hundreds of sites worldwide, in pools, dependent on a power supply and ongoing maintenance to the pumps which circulate cooling waters. If those pumps malfunction, or the power supply ceases, the water will boil off, and the wastes will be released into the biosphere. If the US electrical grid ever fails, fossil fuels will have to be trucked to these sites, forever. As long as the grid never fails in the next, oh, few ten to hundred thousand years, we should be all good. How confident are we in the political and economic stability of the US, for millennia to come? Is it not immensely immoral to be generating power this way, and handing the problem to our distant descendants to deal with? How are they supposed to pay these costs, when we were apparently unable to, despite enjoying the front end benefits of cheap power? Can you imagine if instead of building pyramids in the desert, the ancient Egyptians had left behind a monster that required ongoing babysitting even today, to prevent unleashing catastrophe on the planet?

by thebmax 11y ago

chadgeidel 11y ago

I don't disagree with your fundamental premise, but "would require an equal amount of backup power" sounds like hyperbole. I haven't read any proposal for "100% replacement" that doesn't take into account energy storage solutions. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question those solutions, but an equal amount of traditional power generation as backup seems excessive.

thebmax 11y ago
Case in point is a very cloudy day with no wind. Depending on where it is demand could be very high if it's cold out and heaters are running full blast. You will essentially need a full load supply to come from somewhere or you'll get rolling blackouts. Some regions can compensate with importing or hydro but otherwise you would have to power up the coal and gas. Batteries could maybe work in the future but again this would drastically increase the cost.
- nl 11y ago
  Flow batteries dramatically change the cost calculations for energy storage, and are here now. Additionally, most areas are increasingly moving towards decentralised generation which changes the calculations too.

tokipin 11y ago

the obvious solution is batteries, which improve all sources of power generation including traditional ones by serving as support during peak times. in principle you only need <average energy used per house> stored per house during night time, which may be a much lower bar than it sounds. if the utilities serve a role later it may just be them acting as high-volume energy storage facilities, but even that might not really be necessary if individuals can make money by investing in extra batteries. i think once solar crosses a certain cultural/economic threshold it will just take over everything. it's just way, way too good. there's no other power source that even compares to the potential it already has. what's interesting is not whether it's going to take over everything, but what kind of economy/world you will have when electricity is orders of magnitude cheaper than it currently is.

mightybyte 11y ago
Batteries aren't the only solution here. Any kind of efficient energy storage will work. For example LightSail Energy has been working on compressed air storage for several years now.
- bryanh 11y ago
  There is another interesting class of power storage called "pumped-storage hydroelectricity" [1] - for example - there is one in use in Missouri that actually burst in 2005 [2]. Li-ion batteries have a round-trip efficiency of 80-90% - pumped-storage has ~70-80%. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_...
- thebmax 11y ago
  I'm all for innovation in storage and think there might be a breakthrough at some point. But this goes to the heart of it. Right now a fully renewable grid that matches what we currently have is not financially viable. Not saying it won't become so at some point but it's a high hurdle. All things considered having close to 100% reliable electricity in every home in America for less than ~$100/month is hard to compete with.

olau 11y ago

I don't think you framed it correctly. What matters is always matching the consumption curve. Due to high capital costs, that's really expensive to do with nuclear plants (that's why people talk about baseload, i.e. constant output). So you'd have to solve the same problem in an all-nuclear world - maybe the magnitude would be different, but's essentially the same problem. You could even say that the 'why don't we all use nuclear power plants' is a bit crazy. :)

DennisP 11y ago
That's why I think nuclear and solar are a good combination: nuclear baseload and solar for extra daytime demand. It won't match consumption perfectly, but it'll do better than either technology alone.

lyschoening 11y ago

A large enough HVDC grid would almost totally eliminate the need for backup power. There's always wind or sun somewhere and HVDC transmission losses are <5% per 1,000mi. It's possible to build a grid where pumped and battery storage alone can smoothen out any fluctuations.

Terr_ 11y ago
Then you'd need a global network for sun at night, which has correspondingly greater challenges in terms of coordination and "booting" it back up.

Klinky 11y ago

Scaling down power generation when demand is low is not something nuclear is good at. Battery or energy storage systems that could store excess power from the grid would help any sort of power generation technique become more efficient and reliable. There is a lot of hand waiving and fudging the numbers when it comes to the cost of nuclear. One-off proprietary designs, using proprietary fuel systems, using proprietary operational methodologies is not cost effective. Economies of scale are not in nuclear's favor, and even "at scale" you're looking at billions of dollars worth of investment before the first watt is produced. The need for large-scale waste transportation, storage and reprocessing is not a solved problem. The Nuclear Solves Everything™ thought process requires a lot of head-in-the-sand thinking.

Estragon 11y ago
> Scaling down power generation when demand is low is not something nuclear is good at. Isn't that what control rods do?
- Klinky 11y ago
  They control the reaction within the reactor, and in newer reactors can be used to regulate load. France & Germany do have a load following system in place for their nuclear reactors. It's not a simple matter of turning off a reactor, as this is a large maintenance task. Various mechanisms and regulations have been developed to handle load following for a Nuclear plant. There are still negatives to doing this, such as reduced efficiency, additional operator training, and additional wear on control, fuel and the plant. Positives likely outweigh the negatives, but the reactor must be designed to do load following and regulations need to be in place to ensure it is done safely. It is another thing to consider when talking about the cost of nuclear.
mikepurvis 11y ago
As a species, we have been generating electricity by nuclear fission for 60 years, and in the process, have produced hundreds of thousands of tons of extraordinarily toxic waste. In all that time, no one has found a final resting place for it. Only one serious DGR has even begun construction— and that's Onkalo (Finland), set to begin receiving waste in 2020, should things go to plan. All that spent fuel is just sitting on the surface at hundreds of sites worldwide, in pools, dependent on a power supply and ongoing maintenance to the pumps which circulate cooling waters. If those pumps malfunction, or the power supply ceases, the water will boil off, and the wastes will be released into the biosphere. If the US electrical grid ever fails, fossil fuels will have to be trucked to these sites, forever. As long as the grid never fails in the next, oh, few ten to hundred thousand years, we should be all good. How confident are we in the political and economic stability of the US, for millennia to come? Is it not immensely immoral to be generating power this way, and handing the problem to our distant descendants to deal with? How are they supposed to pay these costs, when we were apparently unable to, despite enjoying the front end benefits of cheap power? Can you imagine if instead of building pyramids in the desert, the ancient Egyptians had left behind a monster that required ongoing babysitting even today, to prevent unleashing catastrophe on the planet?