7 ms·

> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus

> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA. Solar is now THAT cheap if you are willing to put the up-front investment instead of paying PGE $600 a month. And if you don't have the space - buy a solar panel on a business from that other company they are starting - it was on here a week or so ago.

solardev 4y ago
Solar is great at small scale, but at utility/grid scale, that means needing to ramp up storage too. The grid doesn't currently have much storage capacity (batteries, pumped hydro, phase shifting materials, etc.) to support current needs, much less future needs if we want to phase out fossil fuels. Getting the lithium and cobalt infrastructure up to scale takes time and has a lot of geopolitical considerations. It's not impossible but also far from trivial. It's not just a matter of throwing up more panels and turbines and calling it a day. Unless we can solve storage at scale, generation at night will continue to be an issue, and nuclear is the least climatically damaging way to do that in the interim.
- megaman821 4y ago
  Isn't this the crux of the argument for investing more money into solar/wind/storage vs nuclear. The solar and wind stuff is already cheap enough, so its storage vs nuclear. Will nuclear get cheaper faster than grid-scale batteries? There is only so much capital that can be invested, and potential advancements in batteries are looking a lot more promising than advancements in nuclear. I think the lion's share of money should be going to renewables and batteries.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Batteries are the most expensive storage. They cost per kWh stored, while others cost mainly only per W inserted or extracted. Only a minuscule fraction of utility scale storage will ever be batteries, so even mentioning batteries only details discussion.
    - krupan 4y ago
      What will it be then? Flywheels?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        There are many storage alternatives, each more attractive for certain circumstances. Undersea methods are particularly cheap, but synthetic fuels -- ammonia and hydrogen -- have advantages that offset higher cost. What we can be certain of is that Energy Vault (ERGV) investors who get out last will lose badly.
      - theptip 4y ago
        I like gravity storage. Pumping water up a hill, or pumping air into an underwater tank to displace water. Seems that you can get quite good efficiency with these approaches.
        bcrosby95 4y ago
        AFAIK though only pumped water and batteries have been done at anything approaching utility scale. Anything else and you're probably looking at several decades to reach maturity, and then another several decades to roll it out.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        All but chemical methods rely only on trivial physics used industrially billions of times worldwide every day. The only open question is which will have become cheapest, in each place, at the time that conditions become favorable to build it. That time will arrive after we have brought enough renewable generating capacity online that storage would not need to be charged by burning fossil fuel.
  - solardev 4y ago
    There isn't enough time. The world is already way behind on climate change. Nuclear is a mature and safe technology, on a incidents/pollution/deaths per kWh produced basis. Storage is in its infancy. Yes, more investment in that field would be great, but that's a timescale of decades that we don't have -- especially the rest of the world. Realistically we need something much bigger than the Manhattan Project to even have a chance in hell of making an impact at a utility, much less national or global, scale. There's nothing like that even on the horizon, simply no political will. Small to medium investors and companies are trying to tackle it at the locality level (Tesla, small utility experiments, etc.), but there are no national or international movements to solve this issue wholesale. And until it is solved, adding more renewable production without storage to an already-capped grid doesn't really help the issue; in fact it worsens it by creating huge peaks and valleys in power production that are then compensated for by fossil fuel peaker plants (because nuclear can't ramp up and down that quickly). California is the example of this. At the end of the day renewables vs nuclear is a false dilemma. The actual issue is future livability vs present-day profit, and the latter always wins in our political economy. We need vision and political will to get us there, way more investment in both renewables and nuclear, on the timescale of years, not decades, with nuclear providing a band-aid while R&D on storage increases several orders of magnitude. It's the sort of problem that the private sector cannot easily solve; it would take mass national and international collaboration, or perhaps an arms race.
theptip 4y ago
I agree with the trend here. It's inevitable that solar will displace fossil fuels eventually (especially when you consider that fossil fuels will gradually increase in price as the cost to extract goes up). The problem is that moving to solar solely by riding out the market-led transition won't happen fast enough. We would need to subsidize a lot more to avert the worst outcomes of climate change.
criley2 4y ago
Solar is a perfect solution for like 1/3 of the world for like 1/3 of the day. Batteries though, current batteries are a horrible solution. It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc but the solar battery revolution generates some far worse environmental effects getting all those rare earth minerals. Compared to the tiny amounts of fuel needed for reactors, the sheer amount of metal needed for worldwide grid solar batteries is astronomical.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Mentioning batteries can only distract from sensible discussion, because only the tiniest fraction of utility-scale storage will ever be batteries.
- logifail 4y ago
  > It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc Is it? I got the impression the discussion has moved to recognising that nuclear is too expensive, not flexible, and looking at the slow-motion-train-wreck that is the EPR project, new reactor projects are likely going to be very late[0][1][2] and hugely over budget. [0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fresh-delay-to-Flamanville-blamed-on-impact-of-pan https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fresh-delay-to-F... [1] https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finlands-olkiluoto-3-goes-online-after-12-year-construction-delay/ https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finlands-olkiluoto-... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CGN-takes-Taishan-1-offline-following-fuel-failure https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CGN-takes-Taisha...

solardev 4y ago

Solar is great at small scale, but at utility/grid scale, that means needing to ramp up storage too. The grid doesn't currently have much storage capacity (batteries, pumped hydro, phase shifting materials, etc.) to support current needs, much less future needs if we want to phase out fossil fuels. Getting the lithium and cobalt infrastructure up to scale takes time and has a lot of geopolitical considerations. It's not impossible but also far from trivial. It's not just a matter of throwing up more panels and turbines and calling it a day. Unless we can solve storage at scale, generation at night will continue to be an issue, and nuclear is the least climatically damaging way to do that in the interim.

megaman821 4y ago
Isn't this the crux of the argument for investing more money into solar/wind/storage vs nuclear. The solar and wind stuff is already cheap enough, so its storage vs nuclear. Will nuclear get cheaper faster than grid-scale batteries? There is only so much capital that can be invested, and potential advancements in batteries are looking a lot more promising than advancements in nuclear. I think the lion's share of money should be going to renewables and batteries.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Batteries are the most expensive storage. They cost per kWh stored, while others cost mainly only per W inserted or extracted. Only a minuscule fraction of utility scale storage will ever be batteries, so even mentioning batteries only details discussion.
  - krupan 4y ago
    What will it be then? Flywheels?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There are many storage alternatives, each more attractive for certain circumstances. Undersea methods are particularly cheap, but synthetic fuels -- ammonia and hydrogen -- have advantages that offset higher cost. What we can be certain of is that Energy Vault (ERGV) investors who get out last will lose badly.
    - theptip 4y ago
      I like gravity storage. Pumping water up a hill, or pumping air into an underwater tank to displace water. Seems that you can get quite good efficiency with these approaches.
      - bcrosby95 4y ago
        AFAIK though only pumped water and batteries have been done at anything approaching utility scale. Anything else and you're probably looking at several decades to reach maturity, and then another several decades to roll it out.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        All but chemical methods rely only on trivial physics used industrially billions of times worldwide every day. The only open question is which will have become cheapest, in each place, at the time that conditions become favorable to build it. That time will arrive after we have brought enough renewable generating capacity online that storage would not need to be charged by burning fossil fuel.
- solardev 4y ago
  There isn't enough time. The world is already way behind on climate change. Nuclear is a mature and safe technology, on a incidents/pollution/deaths per kWh produced basis. Storage is in its infancy. Yes, more investment in that field would be great, but that's a timescale of decades that we don't have -- especially the rest of the world. Realistically we need something much bigger than the Manhattan Project to even have a chance in hell of making an impact at a utility, much less national or global, scale. There's nothing like that even on the horizon, simply no political will. Small to medium investors and companies are trying to tackle it at the locality level (Tesla, small utility experiments, etc.), but there are no national or international movements to solve this issue wholesale. And until it is solved, adding more renewable production without storage to an already-capped grid doesn't really help the issue; in fact it worsens it by creating huge peaks and valleys in power production that are then compensated for by fossil fuel peaker plants (because nuclear can't ramp up and down that quickly). California is the example of this. At the end of the day renewables vs nuclear is a false dilemma. The actual issue is future livability vs present-day profit, and the latter always wins in our political economy. We need vision and political will to get us there, way more investment in both renewables and nuclear, on the timescale of years, not decades, with nuclear providing a band-aid while R&D on storage increases several orders of magnitude. It's the sort of problem that the private sector cannot easily solve; it would take mass national and international collaboration, or perhaps an arms race.

theptip 4y ago

I agree with the trend here. It's inevitable that solar will displace fossil fuels eventually (especially when you consider that fossil fuels will gradually increase in price as the cost to extract goes up). The problem is that moving to solar solely by riding out the market-led transition won't happen fast enough. We would need to subsidize a lot more to avert the worst outcomes of climate change.

criley2 4y ago

Solar is a perfect solution for like 1/3 of the world for like 1/3 of the day. Batteries though, current batteries are a horrible solution. It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc but the solar battery revolution generates some far worse environmental effects getting all those rare earth minerals. Compared to the tiny amounts of fuel needed for reactors, the sheer amount of metal needed for worldwide grid solar batteries is astronomical.

ncmncm 4y ago
Mentioning batteries can only distract from sensible discussion, because only the tiniest fraction of utility-scale storage will ever be batteries.
logifail 4y ago
> It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc Is it? I got the impression the discussion has moved to recognising that nuclear is too expensive, not flexible, and looking at the slow-motion-train-wreck that is the EPR project, new reactor projects are likely going to be very late[0][1][2] and hugely over budget. [0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fresh-delay-to-Flamanville-blamed-on-impact-of-pan https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fresh-delay-to-F... [1] https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finlands-olkiluoto-3-goes-online-after-12-year-construction-delay/ https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finlands-olkiluoto-... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CGN-takes-Taishan-1-offline-following-fuel-failure https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CGN-takes-Taisha...