Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Give_me_the_science t1_j5cf7zr wrote

Solar, wind and storage. Cheaper to maintain and build, plus more reliable.

Edit: I'm not anti nuclear, it's just not economical vs what I'm suggesting. It just takes engineering and planning to make it work. Pumped hydro, thermal sand storage, iron air batteries (no lithium), compressed air is even cost effective. Read up, nuclear, coal, gas are all going to be more expensive vs storage solutions.

1

TheRealEvanG t1_j5cfvkw wrote

I'm sorry...did you say solar and wind with a battery are more reliable than nuclear?

13

Give_me_the_science t1_j5ct2ig wrote

I didn't say battery, I said storage. There's literally dozens of methods and they all are cheaper than nuclear

15

TheRealEvanG t1_j5ctoa0 wrote

No one's arguing about the cheapness. We're arguing the reliability.

EDIT: And environmental concerns.

−5

paulfdietz OP t1_j5haf82 wrote

A utility scale solar field costs about $1/W to build, a factor of 20 cheaper than a NuScale SMR. Yes, the capacity factor is lower, but not a factor of 20 lower.

5

TheRealEvanG t1_j5ji9sc wrote

I meant to delete that edit when I realized it was wrong.

0

paulfdietz OP t1_j5jmdpk wrote

Reliability is encompassed by cheapness, though. You deal with intermittency by adding storage and CO2-free backup, and this appears to be cheaper than doing things with nuclear.

For example: you can back up the entire grid with combustion turbines burning hydrogen or other non-fossil fuel. A combined cycle power plant has a capital cost of about $1/W, a simple cycle one, $0.50/W. Compare this to the nuclear plant at $10-20/W.

2

TheRealEvanG t1_j5jxozz wrote

Sure, but burning fossil fuels isn't the only environmental concern.

The Rolls-Royce 470MW SMR takes up 10 acres (40,500 m^2.) A 1 MWp solar farm takes about 10 acres.

Now assume that the 470MW outputs 400MW/hr 24 hours per day. That's 9,600 MW/day. A solar farm can only generate about the peak equivalent of 5hrs per day, so that 10 acres is only going to give you about 5MW per day (in perfect weather conditions.) To reach the same 9,600 MW/day that the SMR puts out, you'd need 3 square miles of land (7.77 km^2).

And that's not taking into account all the extra land you'd need for the storage and backup systems.

0

paulfdietz OP t1_j5k0wwf wrote

Land use is a complete canard.

We can estimate the value that society gives to putting land into a wild state by looking at other uses of land. In particular, we can look at agriculture. The value of crops produced per acre is not much. It's an order of magnitude less than the value of electrical energy produced by putting a PV field over that same land.

If the "wilderness value" of land were an obstacle to use of PV, it would absolutely be a showstopper for agriculture. And yet society doesn't treat agriculture that way at all (for example, by banning raising of crops for animal feed). So I conclude society doesn't value wilderness to an extent that would present any real obstacle to mass rollout of PV.

3

TheRealEvanG t1_j5k2zcc wrote

I'm not arguing on behalf of society. Obviously society agrees with you, which is why we see the massive construction of solar farms compared to very little construction of new nuclear power plants.

I'm disagreeing with society. In the next town over from where I live a private company was given a variance by the state to construct a 2 mi^2 solar farm on protected wooded wetlands. A SMR could easily provide the same output without compromising protected wooded wetlands, and it would've created more specialized jobs in the area.

Those kinds of projects shouldn't be happening. If you want to build a 10 mi^2 solar farm out in the middle of the Mojave, then I'm all for that, but if we're switching to green energy to protect the environment, then we shouldn't be compromising the environment to do it.

0

paulfdietz OP t1_j5k3cpu wrote

So, to be consistent, you should also be campaigning for the abolition of agriculture, and its replacement with food artificially synthesized with energy derived from nuclear reactors.

Are you doing this? If so, I'd maliciously love to hear how that suggestion plays out in the public sphere.

2

TheRealEvanG t1_j5kjs2v wrote

Food is not electricity. That's one of the worse false equivalencies I've seen in a while.

1

paulfdietz OP t1_j5kqz4v wrote

Most food is entertainment. Food just for human existence requires far less land than food that satisfies aesthetic concerns. For example, beef is enjoyed by many people, and it wastes something like 90% of the calories in the feed that goes to fattening the cattle.

So, most of the land used to grow food in the US is for making life more enjoyable, just like ultimately all the things are that energy is used for.

2

TheRealEvanG t1_j5ldk5d wrote

You're just making the false equivalency worse. Borderline strawman territory.

1

paulfdietz OP t1_j5lee3x wrote

I'm disagreeing that the equivalency is false.

I want you to explain how one can consider eating beef to be in any way different from using the land to instead make energy for industrial society. Why the inequivalence? Why is beef production somehow morally privileged? Justify, don't just assert.

2

TheRealEvanG t1_j5lohnl wrote

What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?

Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?

You're the one claiming they're the same thing. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how your equivalency is not false.

EDIT: Your equivalency is false because it's founded on the basis that I'm claiming electricity is a superfluous luxury, which I've never claimed.

1

paulfdietz OP t1_j5mbw57 wrote

> What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?

Animal feed can be made from microorganisms grown on synthetic chemicals. This was done half a century ago:

https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8452715/pruteen-sample-sample-synthetic-protein

The methanol there was made from natural gas, but it could be equally made from CO2 reacted with hydrogen produced by electrolysis.

> Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?

That's not the point. How much land could go back to wilderness if we weren't growing food on it? You are arbitrarily ruling out the value of land converted back to wilderness in this fashion, privileging food production on existing land for no reason other than inertia.

But suppose we go along with that, and just stick with existing farmland and consider it usable for any purpose just because we're already using it. Converting some of that farmland to PV collectors, and then allowing beef to become a bit more expensive (perhaps making some synthetic feed to compensate), would be a profitable thing to do -- the value of energy from PV on former agricultural land would be at least an order of magnitude higher than the value of the animal feed produced on that land. Would you object to this? If so, why?

> You're the one claiming they're the same thing.

In economic analysis, we can trade X off against Y. The tradeoff is based on the economic value of the activities. If land in a wild state has value, it has value regardless of whether we were considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection (or for any other use.)

The central point here is that farming doesn't deliver all that much value per acre. Why are you so hung up on preserving this, but objecting to the far more lucrative use of that land for PV? Your position is hypocritical.

2

TheRealEvanG t1_j5mjv2e wrote

> That's not the point.

That is the point. That's my point. It's irrelevant whether it's your point or not because we're not arguing about your point. We're arguing about my point.

I didn't say anything about land converted back to wild land. I said protected wild land shouldn't be being converted in the first place.

> It has value whether we are considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection.

So...you're saying that what you just claimed isn't the point actually is the point. I'm not saying it's okay to put agricultural land on protected woodlands, but not solar farms, and I'm not saying that no land anywhere should be used for energy generation. I'm saying that protected lands shouldn't be being released from their protected status so they can be razed for solar farms when there are perfectly viable alternatives. Feel free to re-read what I said if you think that wasn't my point (although I stated it explicitly by saying I don't care if you want to build a 10 mi^2 solar farm in the mojave.)

You're trying to discredit my position by equating lands already in agricultural use with protected wetlands and woodlands. It is both a false equivalency and a strawman.

You keep trying to use economics to manipulate my opinion, but my point was never an economic point to begin with. My point is an environmental point. The environment should be preserved when it can reasonably be preserved, even if it's not the most economically viable option.

If there is a more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce the equivalent amount of beef at the equivalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land that also requires the conversion of less wild land than conventional agricultural techniques, then I'll advocate fully for its use, provided that it's not being carried out on otherwise protected land.

1

sweenman22 t1_j5cg4vd wrote

Lol. Solar generates 0 power at night. Wind creates 0 power when there is no wind.

−4

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cgzp4 wrote

That's what the storage is for.

11

Columbus43219 t1_j5cjdot wrote

Don't bother. They're thinking of powering a city, not a house. I want to go completely off grid at my house too, not gonna happen because my wife thinks the panels are ugly.

−4

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cku85 wrote

Why is storage not valid for powering a city?

5

kkngs t1_j5clhek wrote

Exactly what storage are you referring to?

0

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cm5zz wrote

Pumped hydro, pumped thermal ("Brayton battery"), various kinds of chemical batteries, hydrogen. For example.

9

prometheus2508 t1_j5cs6qk wrote

Pumped hydro currently has enough storage to supply...1 hour of the US electricity demand.

Getting more pumped hydro means building dams and flooding valleys - an ecological disaster.

3

paulfdietz OP t1_j5csu19 wrote

The existing capacity is not relevant, because as long as most power is coming from burning fossil fuels such storage is pointless.

Pumped hydro would be installed off river. It does not require flooding any significant watercourses. The area flooded would be small compared to the area used by other human activities.

3

prometheus2508 t1_j5cu09d wrote

Lol do the math and get back to me. Ep = mgh

−2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cvka2 wrote

To supply six hours of storage for 600 GW of power with a vertical displacement of 100 meters and water depth of 10 meters, you'd need upper and lower reservoirs with total area of about 3000 km^2. That's a tiny fraction (about 0.03%) of the land area of the United States.

2

MasterDew5 t1_j5eli76 wrote

Where are you going to find 750,000 ac. to build a 10 meter deep reservoir with a 100 meter fall? Plus this is using 100% efficiency. When in practice you are lucky to get over 60%. Look up Raccoon Mtn in Tennessee.

2

prometheus2508 t1_j5cvtvs wrote

That's a unit calculation. How many 600 GW units do we need?

I've done the math myself, that's why I know it's bullshit.

0

paulfdietz OP t1_j5d45nt wrote

600 GW is roughly the average power used by the US grid.

EDIT: more like 470 GW. Ballpark.

4

prometheus2508 t1_j5d4gio wrote

600GJ PER SECOND is the average power used by the US electrical grid?!

1

paulfdietz OP t1_j5d71un wrote

Average power being put onto the grid, yes, around that.

World average rate of primary energy consumption is around 18,000 GW. This includes thermal input to all sectors: transportation, industry, commercial and not just fuel used for electricity production.

4

Columbus43219 t1_j5cut5l wrote

I don't think it's there yet at capacity. The change over would be disruptive and that's a political third rail.

I really wish I could find it, but there was this old video of a guy giving a roadmap plan for cities to use less electricity with no loss of quality of life. He got down to things like how the motors in elevators are so inefficient because of how they get produced. And that's because of how ALL motors get produced to be the standards that we use. (bad paraphrase by me of course)

0

DonQuixBalls t1_j5j7tfz wrote

That's the benefit of the grid. The wind is always blowing somewhere.

1

Illustrious_Crab1060 t1_j5gpovg wrote

So your proposal to an unproven technology is other even more unproven technologies

1

DonQuixBalls t1_j5j7vqn wrote

Solar, wind, and storage already exist around the world.

0

Illustrious_Crab1060 t1_j5kh4m1 wrote

Yes, wind and solar are proven large scale grid storage that doesn't rely on specific geography or large amounts of lithium aren't

−1

ilostmymind_ t1_j5cmg65 wrote

Problem is there literally isn't enough global reserves of required resources for grid storage and electrifying the global transport fleet.

And we can't just pin out hat on new discoveries, tech or advances that could take a decade or more to reach market, because we are out of time now.

−1

colonel_beeeees t1_j5cqap0 wrote

Redox flow batteries are scalable and there's already companies getting started on their first contracts right now.

The graph of innovation is so steeply curved upward, I think people forget that we're pretty good at improving things when allowed to do so

7

prometheus2508 t1_j5csiop wrote

Like miniaturizing nuclear reactors? Or is that the wrong kind of innovation?

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5ctaw6 wrote

It's innovation that has a poor history of innovating. That probably has something to do with the size of the units (even these ones) and the penalty for getting the design wrong. Design iteration seem to take forever and not really work well.

5

prometheus2508 t1_j5ctvbp wrote

Or is it because fossil lobbies suppress all competing technologies?

5

paulfdietz OP t1_j5hau6p wrote

Nuclear stans will explain it's always someone else's fault. Reliable as clockwork, they are.

3

prometheus2508 t1_j5hbjua wrote

The math only allows for one solution to carbon-free energy for humanity. Being ignorant doesn't change the math.

0

ilostmymind_ t1_j5ctan7 wrote

And we'll need those too. Though we'll also need to bring on new mining capacity though which can take decades.

>we're pretty good at improving things when allowed to do so

We are. So why is fission not allowed to along side. People raise cost issues and overruns but that's a symptom of when you don't let an industry develop and a self-sustaining skilled workforce grow.

My point isn't too be pro-nuclear to the exclusion of all else. It's that it needs to be part of the make up because we are going to need resources spread around a lot of different industries.

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5co6u6 wrote

Tell me you think Li-ion is the only kind of battery without saying Li-ion is the only kind of battery.

3

ilostmymind_ t1_j5coscf wrote

Yes because cars run well on pumped hydro...

−3

paulfdietz OP t1_j5ct3jl wrote

So, you're walking back your comment about grid storage?

The batteries for transportation would be needed even if power were from nuclear, unless you're planning on putting nuclear reactors in cars.

6

ilostmymind_ t1_j5cv1dw wrote

Nope. We literally do not have the resources/and or supply chain solely rely on alternatives for everything.

And I don't suggest nuclear to the exclusion of all else.

But battery tech that is barely out of research phase, small scale trials, or requires significant increase in supply capacity is still decades away from being a force in the industry.

What part of we are out of time do some people not understand.

−4

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cvxag wrote

Yes. We can do it without using any excessive amount of any rare material. Storage can be done with cheap materials available in essentially unlimited amounts (steel, for example). The materials required are small compared to the materials used by industrial society as a whole.

You should have realized that your claim there requires that you know that no possible storage technology or combinations thereof could do the job. You are making a very strong claim that would require exhaustive analysis of all known or possible storage technologies that I am sure you have not performed. The claim that it could be done only requires finding some specific counterexamples.

5