Hopefully the antiquated must take rules for variable renewables will be replaced with must take rules for non-fossile deterministic power generation.
204 karma · joined November 3, 2020
The power companies paid for the nukes and the French paid for botching the job.
> The problem is, someone has to eat the loss. People proposing nuclear power generally have no answer regarding who this "someone" is rather than generic handwaving about "the grid!"
The end user always pays in the end.
Around here people will rather pay for working power rather than freeze to death.
> For the Nordics this is already solved with the existing hydropower.
Um, no. Even if you aren’t from around here these things are easily looked up on Wikipedia.
Norway is the only Nordic country with enough hydro, but even they, like Sweden, are lacking in north-south transmission capacity.
Iceland is too far away.
Denmark has no hydro.
Sweden only has enough for 50%.
Finland only has about 20%.
To further point out the obvious, Finland has to import more than a gigawatt during peak power usage, even when using all generation capacity in the country!
> Sweden as of this week stores 19 TWh in their reservoirs. This is the reason no storage gets built in the Nordics
Um, no. Again.
The reason more hydro isn’t being built is because there is nowhere left to put more off it!
Plus, in Sweden’s case, lack of north-south transmission capacity. Which nobody is building.
So, tell me again, why isn’t more grid storage being built out in the Nordics?
Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 101 stuff.
Why would you assume I would be overlooking such an obvious thing?
> If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs.
That’s an interesting comparison. How did you come up with the cost comparison?
A nuclear grid isn’t “impossible”. We already have a nuclear grid. What we don’t have is a 100% nuclear grid.
> The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible
Yes, because of the rules imposed on the electrical market.
Begin by changing the rules so that they stop disincentivizing running nuclear at 100% all the time. Variable renewable sources should not be must take. Nuclear should be paid first and then, if there are any takers, variable renewables.
Non-variable renewables should be free to eat nuclear’s lunch.
> Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants.
Only because must take rules and renewables using other generation to compensate for their variability.
> For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average.
Again, this is only due to outdated energy market rules. If
> Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible?
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said or implied that 100% renewable grids are impossible. Clearly they are from a theoretical perspective and small grids have been built using 100% renewables.
What I am specifically asking is, how are nation size grids going to be decarbonized, i.e. turned into 100% renewable grids in practice and what timescales are required?
As far as I can tell we either need a boatload of new nuclear, storage and/or megaprojects to build out trans/intercontinental transmission networks.
Storage projections don’t look optimistic.
Trans/intercontinental megaprojects are hard and come with fun spices such as geopolitical risks and massive failure modes.
Nukes are expensive and take a long time to build, but at least we know how to do it.
If we don’t have a plan and know how to build TWh grid storage faster than new nukes, then we should start mass producing nukes right now. At least we’ll have the nukes built eventually.
Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 101 stuff.
Why would you assume I would be overlooking such an obvious thing?
> If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs.
That’s an interesting comparison. How did you come up with the cost comparison?
A nuclear grid isn’t “impossible”. We already have a nuclear grid. What we don’t have is a 100% nuclear grid.
> The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible
Yes, because of the rules imposed on the electrical market.
Begin by changing the rules so that they stop disincentivizing running nuclear at 100% all the time. Variable renewable sources should not be must take. Nuclear should be paid first and then, if there are any takers, variable renewables.
Non-variable renewables should be free to eat nuclear’s lunch.
> Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants.
Only because must take rules and renewables using other generation to compensate for their variability.
> Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible?
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said or implied that 100% renewable grids are impossible. Clearly they are from a theoretical perspective and small grids have been built using 100% renewables.
What I am specifically asking is, how are nation size grids going to be decarbonized, i.e. turned into 100% renewable grids in practice and what timescales are required?
As far as I can tell we either need a boatload of new nuclear, storage and/or megaprojects to build out trans/intercontinental transmission networks.
Storage projections don’t look optimistic.
Trans/intercontinental megaprojects are hard and come with fun spices such as geopolitical risks and massive failure modes.
Nukes are expensive and take a long time to build, but at least we know how to do it.
If we don’t have a plan and know how to build TWh grid storage faster than new nukes, then we should start mass producing nukes right now. At least we’ll have the nukes built eventually.
Yes, the French had to pay penalties and cost overruns. Even so that only doubles the system costs from 4 cents to 8 cents.
I only had time to watch half of it.
Use that to play with the numbers at different locations.
Well, if you ignore reliability.
To decarbonize without rolling blackouts you need nuclear or storage.
Around these parts you get the spot price for any solar you generate. Prices can, and do, go negative.
In general prices tend to be low when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing.
So, you might even end up paying for the pleasure of providing solar power :)
As a result electricity prices dropped about 5 cents per kWh across the board.
However, as noted before, this isn’t really all that interesting. The storage part is the big interesting trillion dollar question.
I’m more interested in learning where all the storage that’s going to be needed to decarbonize is going to come from.
According to Woodmac’s most recent grid storage update, there was only 13.4 GWh of grid storage in the US 2022.
Projected growth for the next five years is 10-17 GWh per year with a declining growth trend.
I’m sure they will commission a custom report for you if you compensate them enough.
Either way, 2030 grid storage projections are highly speculative. Projections for the next five years are based on announced and planned projects. Nobody is announcing or even planning 2030 deployments yet.
Besides that, what’s your point? Are you trying to say that the previously touted exponential growth is only going to start after 2027? In 2030 perhaps?
As an aside I find it amusing that you or somebody else downvoted me for quoting a report and asking where the exponential growth that contradicts the report findings are going to come from.
According to the Woodmac report I referenced, the amount of grid storage added yearly is going down.
12 GWh in 2023 10 GWh in 2024
Based on what do you think the report is wrong and where is the exponential growth in grid storage going to come from?
Grid storage is projected only to grow 10-17 GWh per year according to the aforementioned article.
Is that anywhere enough, if the aim is to decarbonise?
Solar load factor is 9% and wind 30%.
Out of interest, how do you find the issues to be more frequent for nuclear?
Around these parts we run nuclear for base load and it pretty much runs full tilt 24/7. There is of course scheduled downtime for service, etc.
Even with projected growth, each addition 12 GWh is not trivial.
https://www.smart-energy.com/regional-news/north-america/us-...
Not all of these assumptions hold everywhere or every time.
“ France and South Korea were at least able to keep prices and construction times constant.”
“ those countries that were able to avoid price surges are countries that do not stand out in regulating nuclear power less, but in standardizing the construction of reactors more.”
> I can't be bothered to answer questions
Well, I can't blame you if you don't know or can't articulate answers.
> One google to prove you 100% wrong is sufficient.
Sure, I'll take the bait. What is your one true google then?
> Pro tip: try to avoid histrionics about "what to do when the sun doesnt shine and the wind doesnt blow". its so 2012 ;)
Here's another pro tip: go outside. Observer. You will see and feel that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. You can even find occasions when both meteorological phenomenons occur.
Then look at electrical generation charts. Note that both sun and wind production varies. Note that low or zero generation of both occurs.
I mean, this is basic kindergarten stuff. I can't believe I have to spell out the obvious to somebody that can both read and right. Don't know about the comprehension part, tho.
Can you please answer the question with dollars and cents? Or if you don't know, say so.
Green electricity isn't free. Neither will synthetic fuels be.
Searching for "storage" gives very few hits. This was perhaps the most pertinent hit:
"IT IS GENERALLY NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO store electricity in bulk. The widespread deployment of new storage technologies and/ or high penetrations of electric vehicles may someday change this, but these developments are unlikely before 2030."
along with this:
"Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is the only other storage technology [other than pumped hydro] that has achieved long-term utility-scale operation. ... Only two utility-scale CAES facilities have been constructed worldwide: a 290 MW facility with two hours of storage in Huntorf, Germany, that entered commercial operations in 1978 and a 110 MW facility with 26 hours of storage in McIntosh, Alabama, that entered commercial operations in 1991."
Not very much to go on, now is there.
There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today. We literally cannot burn 100% hydrogen at scale to provide utility power today.
We may be able to do so in the future, which would be great. Even better if we can do so without emissions and cheaper than other alternatives. But we cannot do so today.
Siemens thinks we can do 100% combustion turbines in about a decade or so. Time will tell. There may be obstacles or maybe everything goes swimmingly.
> And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?
I brought it up because it is a pertinent detail.
Hydrogen is touted as being the solution to storage for renewables. We are still far from that.
According to https://model.energy/ it might not be such an affordable solution. And even with 100% hydrogen combustion turbines there is the question of storage. Salt caves are cheap, steel storage tanks aren't.
I got Average system cost [EUR/MWh]: 101.9 which is more than nuclear, when solving for renewables + storage + hydrogen.
How much will each kWh generated from synthetic fuels cost?
What better investment opportunity? Again, what else are you going to spend the money on that gives you non-polluting 24/7 power output rain or shine?
> Why in the world would you need that much storage?
You ask and answer yourself in the very next sentence:
> Obviously Finland + solar aren't 100% compatible given the latitude
> fairly extensive modeling shows a route to 99% renewable Australia with only 5 hours storage:
There are always geographies that have advantageous positions for electrical generation. Iceland has geothermal, Norway hydro, etc. This does not mean you can generalize.
> Change the mix to favor wind resources and you could likely achieve the same in Finland with some modest investments in transmission infrastructure.
Nah. Just like solar wind is highly variable. Just this week wind production varied between 55 MW and 3,8 GW.
Peak deman is about 15 GW. Subtracing 4 GW of nuclear and 2 GW of hydro, what are you going to do, overbuild current wind capacity 160x?
> We would be in a better and cheaper world if we had built a nuclear-first grid 30 years ago -- but we didn't -- and it just doesn't make sense to try to do so now when much cheaper options exist.
I'm still at a loss off what those better options are.
What better thing can I buy for $15B that gives me access to 1,6GW of generation capability 24/7?
It was not a rhetorical question.
Furthermore the first hit on Google is:
"GE, DOE Accelerating the Path towards 100% Hydrogen"
The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials.
None of these refute the original quote from the 2023 Lazard report:
"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."
Neither does the link you provided, which is full of weasel words.
As such 100% hydrogen combustion turbines very much do not seem to be a solved problem. I will concede that there appear to be some prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines, which is great. Still no commercial availability, tho.
Siemens (from the first page of Google results) probably has a more realistic take on the matter:
" H₂ capabilities of our medium-sized gas turbines
As of today, the gas turbines we're testing in our new Zero Emission Hydrogen Turbine Center are ready to burn up to 75% of hydrogen in the fuel mix. And step by step we aim to reach 100% by 2030."
So, perhaps we can agree that 100% hydrogen combustion turbines are an aspirational technology. Something that might come about in the next decade or so.
> The fact that these rhetorical questions carry what appears to be a distinctly anti environmental agenda doesnt exactly make this incuriosity better.
LOL.
I will begin by reminding you of the Hacker News guidelines:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I will continue with noting the we, in Finland, produce about 90% (IIRC) of our electricity without fossile fuel emissions. How are you guys doing?
So you can take your "anti environmental agenda" and do something interesting with it in dark, enclosed spaces.
Sidestepping the incorrect use of "rhetorical", I do wonder what it is about facts and relevant questions that get under the skin of some people?
Is it just the embarrassment of realizing that one's arguments are without merit or the facing one's inability to coherently explain metters?
You didn't read anything I wrote, nor did you raise any of the points I raised.