undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdgroshev3y ago0 comments

They are more expensive only when compared to a marginal kWh put at time of solar/wind’s convenience into the grid that is stabilised by other means (mostly fossils). Look up how much electricity went up in Texas last time the generation dropped by iirc just ~20%; solar goes to zero every night, and wind regularly dies down across Western Europe for days or even weeks. In those circumstances and without fossils to fall back to, nuclear is infinitely cheaper than solar/wind.

We can’t plan our grids or judge the costs according to not just best, but even average scenarios. We have to plan once-in-decades anomalies, the long tail. Non-dispatchable energy sources get exponentially more expensive once you start doing that.

0 comments

moloch-hai3y ago

The "stable grid" argument is well past its sell-by date.

In the future we will need to build out storage. Before there is enough renewable generation to charge storage, building it would be foolish. After, we will need storage, and build it.

And, we will always need liquid fuel. As cost for renewables continues exponentially downward, ammonia synthesized at solar farms in the tropics will undercut NG. In the meantime, shortfalls will be filled by burning an ever-decreasing amount of NG.

We will need a hell of a lot of electric ammonia synthesis in coming decades.

dgroshevOP3y ago

I don't understand why do you think it's "past its sell-by date". The wealthiest country in the world had a statewide blackout when generation dropped really mildly compared to intra-day, intra-month, and intra-season variability of solar/wind, and you just dismiss it? On what basis?

If the storage will need to be built out, then your argument about costs is disingenuous in the world without fossils, because those costs are currently masked by fossil generation.

moloch-hai3y ago

Texas, artificially cut off from the wider grid, exhibited its domestic governance failings once again. This has no wider implications for energy policy than that grid connectivity covers for multiple sins.

Need for fossil generation backing will decline naturally as storage is built out, but will take a long time to go to zero. Pretending otherwise makes bad policy. Building storage without renewable capacity to charge it from would be stupid because charging storage by fossil fuel burning would be monumentally stupid.

dgroshevOP3y ago

It is a nice demonstration of an impact of a fairly mild unexpected drop in generation. Renewables, as things stand, are that, all the time, on steroids.

You don't need as much storage if you have nuclear and you can't compare the two without accounting for (potentially weeks or months of) storage. "Building out storage" is not an unavoidable expense that just happens automatically, it's a requirement to have a reliable greed that is mostly based on non-dispatchable renewables, and thus a part of their cost.

Seeing how you outright ignore this point, I suspect you are arguing in bad faith.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

moloch-hai3y ago

The "stable grid" argument is well past its sell-by date.

In the future we will need to build out storage. Before there is enough renewable generation to charge storage, building it would be foolish. After, we will need storage, and build it.

We will need a hell of a lot of electric ammonia synthesis in coming decades.

dgroshevOP3y ago

If the storage will need to be built out, then your argument about costs is disingenuous in the world without fossils, because those costs are currently masked by fossil generation.

moloch-hai3y ago

dgroshevOP3y ago

It is a nice demonstration of an impact of a fairly mild unexpected drop in generation. Renewables, as things stand, are that, all the time, on steroids.

Seeing how you outright ignore this point, I suspect you are arguing in bad faith.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse