Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 818 posts

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#581

Post by redisman »

ncmncm wrote: post #392
xienze wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wind still blows at night, so you do not need battery storage to provide all the demand during the night. Is it enough wind to meet all the demand at night? And what happens when it stops blowing as much as expected for a long period of time[0]? You still need baseline power generation for quite some time to come until those questions that, well, keep getting hand waved away are solved. 0: https://fortune.com/2…

If you don't have renewables for a while, and transmission line availability flags, you import anhydrous ammonia from the tropics. So, you need only minimal over-provisioning and local storage.

But then you presumably need to build these extra power plants that can use that fuel?

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#582

Post by redisman »

notabothonest wrote: post #525
photochemsyn wrote: post #12

Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…

> Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. On what basis do you make this assertion? Because when it comes to renewables, I very rarely see any inclusion of the costs of additional large scale energy storage (probably because it still remains an unsolved issue) and I never s…

Controversial opinión: we should invest heavily into nuclear and renewables as they seem to synergize quite well

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#583

Post by credit_guy »

p1necone wrote: post #561
credit_guy wrote: post #558

Solar and wind have a storage problem. Day-to-night storage is a solved problem, but summer-to-winter is very far from being solved. Batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, compressed air are simply off by factors of 100x or more. There are just 2 plausible solutions: chemical storage, or massive overcapacity. Chemical storage means hydrogen, or ammonia, or iron powder, or some other substance that can undergo reversible…

> massive overcapacity How bad of a solution is this? How bad does solar/hydro output get during the off season in most places (presumably wind is more consistent than those two when averaged out over shorter time frames than a whole year)?

Take a look at this chart with monthly solar electricity generation in Germany [1].

In June there's 6 times more solar generation than in December.

That's it, if you want to build enough solar capacity to cover you in December, then it's going to be 6 times more than you need in June.

Solar might be cheaper than natural gas, but not by a factor of 6.

[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#584

Post by paledot »

WalterBright wrote: post #565
californical wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know there are options like pumped water, compressed air, spinning disc. No idea how feasible they are at scale, but I can imagine a world where physical storage like that could be lower maintenance & cost in the long-term compared to chemical batteries. Even if less efficient, you can get enormous potential storage from pumped water with relatively simple machines compared to massive battery farms.

I know a fellow who is running a startup that moves a (very) heavy weight up a hill, and going back down it provides power. He says it is something like 90% efficient at energy recovery, whereas pumped water is far less due to friction in the pipes. He also said the inertia of a falling weight is enormous, and would help stabilize the grid.

Okay, but if his startup isn't named Sisyphus Energy, I don't know what he's doing with his life.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#585

Post by pfdietz »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #570
pfdietz wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waiting for the CO2 taxes to rise high enough to drive off fossil fuels.

Many people support CO2 taxes to raise the price of fossil fuels when gas prices are low. When gas prices are high I see very few people cheering it on or attempting to claim credit for all their great work to raise the price. It's tough to really get that ball rolling if that's your goal due to this marketing issue.

Without CO2 taxes, we're globally screwed. I expect they will be forced through, and confiscatory tariffs on trade with countries that refuse to impose them.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#586

Post by mayama »

philwelch wrote: post #22
photochemsyn wrote: post #12

Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…

> ... I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible. Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology, that's probably true. Nuclear te…

> Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology

Grid storage technology is already there with pumped hydro storage(PHS). As 90% of built and newly building grid storage is already PHS. It is political problems and inertia that's holding it back. To be clear, I'm referring to off the river closed-loop PHS, which doesn't need a huge river check dam, flood zone, huge population relocation or ecological issues. All it needs is two places with area of 1sqkm each some hundred meter elevation apart. There is ANU study that claims we have enough of such sites for needed storage. Look at how fast China is building PHS recently. I think PHS approvals, even for closed-loop, in US are as hard to get as nuclear, which is holding it back.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/01/05/sustainable-pumped-hy...

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/10/05/aussie-scie...

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#587

Post by pfdietz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #573
pfdietz wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tell me: which component of a cryogenic energy storage system is not already in use in some process (air separation or otherwise)? One of the attractions of this sort of thing is it's composed entirely of things that are already quite mature, and that have existing supply chains.

And for the third time, just because the individual components are used in different applications doesn't mean it's going to be cheap or scalable to use them in energy storage. The cost history of existing cryogenic storage plants indicates that no, it's not effective for energy storage it's 4-5x more expensive. We build plenty of flywheels. Does that mean energy storage based on giant flywheels is guaranteed to be e…

You're changing the subject now. You were criticizing these for lack of maturity, not for being uneconomical. My point is that your criticism that they aren't mature is misplaced, since the component technologies are all well established. Of course, it could be LN2 or LAir storage doesn't compete.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#588

Post by mayama »

q1w2 wrote: post #127
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China mostly: 2021 figures: > China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW. 81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.

That does not discuss storage AT ALL. True solar with storage is not economical.

They are building massive pumped hydro storage too. A lot of closed-loop PHS is being built by China. Closed loop PHS doesn't have same ecological issues as traditional dams, but is not as trendy as batteries and has almost same political issues as traditional dams in west. So, it is generally ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#589

Post by [deleted] »

credit_guy wrote: post #583
p1necone wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> massive overcapacity How bad of a solution is this? How bad does solar/hydro output get during the off season in most places (presumably wind is more consistent than those two when averaged out over shorter time frames than a whole year)?

Take a look at this chart with monthly solar electricity generation in Germany [1]. In June there's 6 times more solar generation than in December. That's it, if you want to build enough solar capacity to cover you in December, then it's going to be 6 times more than you need in June. Solar might be cheaper than natural gas, but not by a factor of 6. [1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#590

Post by Manuel_D »

pfdietz wrote: post #587
Manuel_D wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for the third time, just because the individual components are used in different applications doesn't mean it's going to be cheap or scalable to use them in energy storage. The cost history of existing cryogenic storage plants indicates that no, it's not effective for energy storage it's 4-5x more expensive. We build plenty of flywheels. Does that mean energy storage based on giant flywheels is guaranteed to be e…

You're changing the subject now. You were criticizing these for lack of maturity, not for being uneconomical. My point is that your criticism that they aren't mature is misplaced, since the component technologies are all well established. Of course, it could be LN2 or LAir storage doesn't compete.

No, my criticism of the lack of maturity of cryogenic air energy storage is still correct. The fact that it shares some components with air separation does not change the fact that cryogenic air storage is not mature technology.

Similar deal with ammonia energy storage. We've got plenty of experience with synthesizing ammonia for fertilizer production. We've got very little, if any, experience using synthesized ammonia as a form of energy storage.

It was you, not I, that started this tangent about air separation in this comment [1]. I was, from the beginning, talking about energy storage systems.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31760980

Post reply on HN