> (ignoring the fact that t takes longer to build than the available time to transition)
My understanding is that nuclear is necessary, unless you believe in very optimistic development timelines for better batteries. Yes, batteries have come a long way, but they are still a long way off from being able to support base load -- is that not correct? It might be faster to build out nuclear, than to develop the necessary improvements in battery tech...
Or am I completely off here?
I've seen several analysis' such as [1] that tend point towards renewables being cheaper than nuclear power, even when taking transmission and storage into account. Better transmission cables to require less storage, plus overprovisioning and using the surplus power to create e-fuels and similar is a pretty viable alternative.
So the short answer is - is nuclear necessary? - no. Is building out new nuclear cheaper than building out new renewables + storage? Also probably no - but that might change if small scale modular reactors really take off.
However is keeping nuclear plants around a good idea? Absolutely.
[0] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad5a93ce-3a7f-461d-... [1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-wind-keep-getting-chea...
I would take reports that account for stuff never done before with a pinch of salt.
eg. [1] ( $$ == AUD Australian )
French firm Neoen will build a mega battery in Collie after winning a two-year contract to smooth out energy supply and demand in Western Australia’s south-west grid, which is under strain from soaring midday peak supply from rooftop solar and ageing coal-fired power stations.
The battery, to be constructed from 224 Tesla “Megapacks”, can store 219 megawatts of energy for four hours during the day and discharge it back to the grid during high demand in the evening when solar generation falls.
UGL, a subsidiary of Spanish-owned CIMIC, has started construction on one of four grid-scale batteries in the south-west of WA. No cost was provided for the battery.
Synergy is commissioning a battery in Kwinana that can store 100 megawatts for two hours that was originally meant to be operating by the end of 2022.
In the May budget, the WA government allocated $2.3 billion for two further batteries.
Synergy will build another battery at Kwinana that can store or discharge 200 megawatts for four hours that is expected to start operating by late 2024.
South Australia is also investing in new battery parks [2] (on the back of the success of one of the earliest "city scale" battery parks globally)
[1] https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/tesla-...
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-23/vanadium-flow-battery...
Here you're saying it's already happening. And yet your quote is: "will build, to be constructed, has started construction, will build another battery..."
Let me break it down for you:
1) It's already happening - South Australia had the first city scale battery park in the world (2017) [1][2]
The original installation in 2017 was the largest lithium-ion battery in the world at 129 MWh and 100 MW.
It was expanded in 2020 to 194 MWh at 150 MW.
Despite the expansion, it lost that title in August 2020 to the Gateway Energy Storage in California, USA.
The larger Victorian (another Australian state) Big Battery began operations in December 2021.
Worthy of note: We've weathered a battery park fire which took out two battery packs [3]
The links above are specifically about the latest builds as they represent second generation experiences and pricing .. better locked in than the first gen ("never been done before") cases.
All up Australia has almost six years of real world city scale battery park usage - a good source of reference material for any others thinking of going a similar route.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
[2] https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/
[3] https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/09/28/australias-...
It's not a breakdown. It's links and info you should've started with.
But thank you for this info.
Well, dock my pay then.
In common Australian English if I state that we have done something in the past you can either take that at face value or call me a liar.
If I then proceed to link to the current installation activity you can assume I'm talking about current activity as distinct from past activity.
If you're confused about past activity you could look to the links which refer to past battery park instalation.
You're most welcome and I'd be obliged if you'd look in a mirror and reflect on your attitude here.
In common internet English, the probability of any given statement being a half-truth at best asymptotically approaches zero.
> If you're confused about past activity you could look to the links which refer to past battery park instalation.
Which you didn't provide until I pointed out that all your links are about future projects
> I'd be obliged if you'd look in a mirror and reflect on your attitude here.
People giving out this advice are the people who would benefit from this advice the most
Sweden could do well to plan on building out wind power that’s surplus to their needs (as could many other places), solely because it can be exported if you’re long term over-capacity for what you need.
Storage is the big hurdle, but there’s a lot of novel options here. Concrete batteries are a fairly simple example of creative ways to store energy and I’m sure there’s better options than just planning on more rare Earth metals.
larger scale hydrogen extraction maybe? (I don’t know much about this just throwing it out there).
Not available at any scale beyond marketing materials
> larger scale hydrogen extraction maybe
To what end?
I have also heard statements that transporting Hydrogen through pipelines is more scaleable (because of less land required) and causes less energy loss than electric cables. Much needed in a long country with energy balancing problems like Sweden.
> i.e. dunkelflauts in winter which neither batteries or nuclear particularly help with.
doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Wikipedia defines a dunkelflaute as "a period of time in which little or no energy can be generated with wind and solar power". Isn't that precisely where you have to fall back to nuclear, battery, or fossil fuels?
Also:
> Batteries have already solved baseload for most of the planet
this runs contrary to a lot of what I've read about the topic (which doesn't mean I lot, I know -- I'm not an expert). Do you have a source I could have a look at?
It doesn't even make environmental sense compared with fossil based methane (though greener methane sources are available).
See https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8 for a real time simulation of how Australia would cope with 5 hours of battery storage (he has some in depth articles that go through his methodology too).
> See https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8 for a real time simulation of how Australia would cope with 5 hours of battery storage
Forgive me for being sceptical, but you did state that batteries have solved base load for most of the planet. Australia is probably the least convincing example anyone could pick, due to its extremely low population density, long coastline, and high amount of sun hours. I'd be much more interested in seeing this calculation for places like China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Russia.
Australia has a head start on solar mostly due to low costs of capital letting people invest long term. Same reason Northern Europe deploys more solar than you'd think is globally sensible.
This statement can be charitably described as "you're misinformed".
> dunkelflauts in winter which neither batteries or nuclear particularly help with.
Same charitable interpretation of your statement on nuclear
well, and for technical ones. Since this a tech-heavy board, I expect it to be common knowledge here that you can't operate a grid on wind and solar alone, as you can't control the weather-based output (which, in the case of solar, also has a tendency to maximize when it's -not- most needed). A grid needs a controllable baseline source to have any stability. That can be gas or any other fired plant, it could sometimes be hydro, but it can also be nuclear.
Burning things up is a climate nightmare (though still where about 90% of world power comes from), and also very much more expensive in Europe now than it used to be. Hydro can't be built just anywhere you like, and if the river is also a waterway, also can't be controlled based on energy need (as it is controlled based on traffic demands). So until we get a fusion plant, nuclear is just a predictable decision tree outcome.
As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, Sweden is consistently (except literally a few days a year) a net energy exporter, in a national sense they don't really need more production. The issue is regional production, which fell off a cliff due to russian gas supplies to Germany being shut off and them deciding to continue with planned decommissioning of domestic nuclear generation during that period.
The real problem is that they can produce it for cheap and sell it with a huge profit to other countries. Since it is an open market, this artificially drives up the domestic prices.
So a much cheaper solution would be to cut the cable to Germany and France and leave the open market
They could, however, tax/nationalize private producers and return windfall profits to swedish ratepayers.
This is also one of the reasons the controversial electricity bill refund was not so controversial IMO. It was our electricity to start with and the money came from profits for selling it abroad. A more stable solution should be developed of course.
It is not a long term solution to high regional energy prices (the fees were accrued over multiple years), and it absolutely was not a windfall profits tax.
Edit: iirc the elstöd program administrative costs were predicted to cost more than the amount refunded. It was hasty election politics, and not likely to be anything permanent.
We're reaching a point where anything we should do will take longer than the time we have to do it. That is a weak claim, given that the same is true for any solution we try to implement, and that late is much better than never.