A 3x overbuild of solar+wind in an optimal mix, along with a continental grid and 3 hours worth of batteries is all you need for 99.99% reliability: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z
I’m 100% in favor of lots of renewable use, but it’s not always a great use of land, prevents rewilding (with solar), and in the case of solar uses a ton of water. The latter being a major concern in arid regions.
A lot of nuclear’s cost comes from shifting/overly tight regulation, legal prohibition of reprocessing, legal prohibition for long term storage, and graft. The latter will be a problem with large scale renewables once they’re large enough.
Land use of required solar is only a few hundred square miles in the US. Not a big deal.
Nuclear's biggest cost is just that the US is very bad at doing big projects. Just the steam turbine in a nuclear plant is enough to make nuclear uneconomical, that's why coal plants are so much more expensive than natural gas.
Nuclear’s problem is badly written regulation and insane environmental review policies. That and the one off nature of their construction. We need to standardize and rewrite regulation based on probabilistic risk rather than worst case scenario planning and the linear non-threshold model.
My other concern is that such a complex and interconnected system is likely to be fragile in unexpected ways.
And none of this addresses the land area required for base load solar.
I second that.
The robustness of the current global energy supply system based largely upon solid, liquid and gaseous fuels stems from its flexibility and inherent buffering capability and the fact that lots of the connections/links are loose/weak/interchangeable. (Supplier of fuel xy can be chosen relatively spontaneously, completely unlike some cable which invariably connects two fixed geographic locations.)
An intercontinental electrical grid is in comparison dramatically less flexible. I'd call it grossly negligent to even attempt to implement a world spanning grid exceeding lets say 15 % of total power transmission.
And the overbuilding necessary is usually more in range of 10x assuming favourable storage conditions (which aren't necessarily available).
Mind you, the model misses things like "Bavaria is NIMBYing all necessary transit work" etc. which is why you have weird situation of Germany paying Netherlands to curtail wind farms while buying nuclear from France, because they have to route around NIMBYs.
Only slightly related - I'd love if the cost comparisons in general discourse stopped avoiding the issue of intermittency (that's how you always get such low prices on wind and solar) and used costs that include capacity factor and dispatchability (which https://model.energy/ does). Having funding (and purchasing priority) decided on dispatchable green sources (whether hydro, wind/solar/battery/hydrogen mixes, or nuclear) would probably help a lot in stabilisation of grid and long term decarbonisation, even if it would reduce some frankly pathological incentives for renewable build out (pathological because of linked carbon-producing plant build out to stabilise the setup, while simultaneously using cheap peak production prices to push out stable setups)
The site's model also does not include pumped hydro, or intermediate term thermal storage.
All these extra options can only help reduce the cost of integrating renewables, and make renewables more competitive vs. nuclear.
Isn't the problem that electrolyzers mostly have to run 24/7 because they would otherwise not be profitable? Then all these processes that rely on hydrogen wouldn't actually belong to the dispatchable demand category.
Dispatchable demand could be found in heat pumps (in combination with buffer tanks) for heating homes. (As long as there's sufficient grid capacity)
But using curtailed intermittent power is different: here, the electricity is cheap, and capital cost of the electrolyzer becomes more important than efficiency. Under these different design tradeoffs, one might use a different technology (alkaline electrolyzers without platinium group catalysts, say, rather than PEM cells with expensive Nafion membranes and platinum.)
I have seen claims that alkaline electrolyzers are available for < $200/kW in China.
As for curtailment-reducing tricks, that's a good argument but IMO not changing the base calculus much - the model is about replacing the base demand power sources, so that we can push the extra into peak. Bigger problem is that scaling down demand is problematic for dealing with underproduction, and also simply missing on power (Thus my preference for billing for dispatchable power generation, then extra peak could be funneled easier into bonus things like green hydrogen for non-storage etc.)
On-river pumped hydro is not easily expanded. But there is enormous potential for off-river pumped hydro.
PLUS 3 hours battery scattered everywhere in the country (to be renewed every few years).
PLUS a full continental electricity grid (basically admitting that not every country can be sovereign of their own energy).
Was this post supposed to make solar and wind look good?
Solar power is now less than $10/MWh in Spain and Arizona: https://qz.com/1995355/the-era-of-subsidies-for-wind-and-sol...
$13.5 for solar in Abu Dhabi could be set as the current lower limit in optimal conditions.
https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles/uae-solar-deal-brings-l...
We can't let nuclear distract us from the goal, which is preventing more serious warming.
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-...
First, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant is not an unalterable law of nature. Second, when people were saying that we should build more plants 20 years ago, a common objection was that it would be useless because it would take 20 years and by then everything would be powered by clean renewables. I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.
Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity?
While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.)
40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper.
Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems.
Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology.
There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN.
The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction.
Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change.
Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers.
No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century.
Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable.
The list goes on and on.
Boy, that sure sounds promising
Should we avoid particularly large climate changes? Well, yes, mostly for Chesterton's Fence reasons. But I'm far from panic.
Then you haven't read much.
I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit".
Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected.
To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts.
You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.
One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen.
You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some climate change model predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2020. All the entrance signs were modified to state this to every single visitor: Enjoy 'em while they last, friends, but climate change will render these glaciers puddles by just 2020!
Well, come 2020, the glaciers are still right there. A bit smaller. But also nowhere near gone.
Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
It's a shame you didn't quote more of my first sentence there. Let me help: "This will mean more extreme weather..."
Guess what 2021 featured? A 1000 year heat wave in the oh-so-temperate Pacific Northwest, at temperatures previously considered physically impossible in that region. And a few months prior? Record-setting cold wiped out the grid in Houston and plunged a big chunk of Texas into survival mode.
If you're looking for an all-at-once calamity to herald the coming of Climate Doom, you're gonna have to watch the movies. Because what all the science clearly indicates is a gradual, inexorable increase in extreme phenomena.
> You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I mean, we're having an informal discussion on the internet, where scientific jargon and careful discussion of error bars gets in the way of clear communication. But I can still be pretty damn confident of those predictions because climate change isn't some far-off future possibility. It's unfolding all around us, as we speak. The increase in extreme weather? It's been going on for 50 years.
Rising temperatures? Droughts? Floods? Fires? They're all on the upswing and have been for long enough that it's impossible at this point to attribute them all to some statistical anomaly.
Let's put it another way. If you catch me playing with matches on the couch and exclaim, "You'll burn the house down!", I probably have some cause to accuse you of being overly dramatic. If, on the other hand, the house is already on fire, my protestations that "You can't be so cocksure it'll be uncomfortable to live in the house" sound pretty ridiculous.
> I live near Glacier National Park.
Cool. That's an anecdote. Not data. Do you have any actual data to support your stance that climate scientists -- climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc -- the world over are "alarmists"?
> Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
Straw man. Nobody's claiming it'll be the end of the world. The planet will be just fine. Humans will simply find it a more inhospitable place in which to live. Which is what I said. And all those "shrill screeching forecasting failures" from the last 30 years have, on average, been too conservative, forecasting slower warming.
You just haven't noticed because you don't want to believe it might be true. I understand the emotional reaction. It's the same thing that compels people to refuse to believe that covid exists or vaccines work. Doesn't mean it's a logical or accurate stance, though.
There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.
Now consider that almost every previous cycle of the IPCC report has missed its forecasted marks because it was too conservative.
The IPCC report is the toned down, let's-not-rock-the-boat version of the scientific community's view regarding the unfolding climate disaster. It is an optimistic set of forecasts, with loads of hedging.
Time will tell who wins out.
The historical lag time comes from the period of rapid technological improvement and regulatory change where projects had to be redesigned multiple times mid project.
If you think grid scale solar and wind are just as susceptible to bad regulation, NIMBYs, graft, and bureaucratic nonsense then you may not be paying attention. Note the lack of offshore wind in the US.
Existing nuclear power tech could displace natural gas and coal without the need for storage or much land. We also wouldn’t need to overhaul the grid.
Also, USA might take 30 years, but then USA is infamous for having trouble building any infrastructure these days. Global warming and energy scarcity is a global problem.
Yes, and I also didn't say that. Again, do not put words in my mouth. I'm getting really tired of your disingenuous, bad faith non-arguments.
We could store hydrogen in those caverns instead.