• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    We’ve basically solved the storage issues through about eighty different methods that have various applicability in different situations. They just need to be scaled up at this point.

    It’s actually better. No traditional power plant can match demand exactly, and large amounts of power are wasted as a result. A wind+solar+storage solution can match demand very close. This means we don’t need to replace every GWh of coal and gas with a GWh of renewable. The lack of wasted power takes off a pretty big chunk.

    • Waryle@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They just need to be scaled up at this point.

      “We totally can go to Mars, we have engines, they just need to be scaled up at this point”

      Scaling up is almost the entirety of the problem that needs to be solved, you can’t just brush it aside like this.

      Check my comment that shows the scale of the problem

      No traditional power plant can match demand exactly, and large amounts of power are wasted as a result

      Absolutely false. Power consumption is very stable and previsible, plants can react in minutes, and the surproduction is small enough to be stored or exported.

      The French electricity system operator, RTE, provides all the information on this subject:

      Real-time consumption and production by region

      Real-time forecasting and consumption

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I brush it off because nuclear has exactly the same problem. Worse, actually. We know what happens when you build solar, wind, and storage: on average, things get built on time and in budget. We also know what happens when we build nuclear: it doubles its schedule and budget and makes companies go bankrupt. One is way easier to scale up than the other.

        If all the paperwork was done and signed off today, there wouldn’t be a single GW of new nuclear produced in the US before 2030. Even optimistic schedules are running up against that limit.

        React to demand in minutes? Cute. Because most energy storage works by being pulled by demand directly rather than reacting to it, things change almost instantly.

        This is critical because it means we don’t have to replace a GW of fossil fuel generation with a GW of renewables. The difference between demand and supply all but disappears. You don’t have that for nuclear, though, because it doesn’t react that way. In fact, it’s preferred if they only provide baseload that never changes.

        • Waryle@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I brush it off because nuclear has exactly the same problem. Worse, actually. We know what happens when you build solar, wind, and storage: on average, things get built on time and in budget. We also know what happens when we build nuclear: it doubles its schedule and budget and makes companies go bankrupt. One is way easier to scale up than the other.

          No, just no.

          We know what happens when we build nuclear:

          • We invest 140 billion.
          • We build more than two reactors a year for 25 years.
          • By building up skills and an industry with projects, you can even put 1 plant and 4 reactors in the same place in less than 7 years from a vacant lot (Blayais power plant) .
          • We decarbonize almost all of its electricity in two decades.
          • It runs smoothly for more than 50 years.
          • You don’t rely on fossils and the dictatorships that sit on it anymore.
          • We become the biggest electricity exporter of Europe for decades, and the biggest of the world most of those years too

          It’s called France.

          We also know what happens when we want to do without nuclear when we don’t have hydro-electricity:

          • We invest two trillion of euros.
          • 25 years later we have 60% renewables, but we’re still burning coal and gas.
          • so we are still one of the most polluting electricity in Europe
          • We’re always at least six years away to get out of coal.
          • We don’t have a date to get out of the gas because we have no idea how we’re going to build enough electricity storage to make renewable to work

          It’s called Germany.

          Take this [map] (https://app.electricitymaps.com/map)

          • On the top right corner, click on “Country”
          • On the bottom left corner, click on “Yearly”

          Can you tell me how much green countries do you see which does not rely on hydro and/or nuclear?

          The answer is: >!not. A. Single. One. Even after trillions of euros invested in it worldwide, not one country managed to reduce their electricity carbon print without nuclear or hydro.!<

          If all the paperwork was done and signed off today, there wouldn’t be a single GW of new nuclear produced in the US before 2030. Even optimistic schedules are running up against that limit.

          Why this arbitrary date? In five and a half years, there would be no power plant, but if you launch 15 1GW projects in parallel, maybe it will take 15 years to build because of legal recourse as well as a shortage of engineers/technicians because people have been told for 30 years that nuclear is Satan and we want to stop. But after 15 years you have 15GW of nuclear.

          But how long before we find a solution for storage? How much will it cost? Is it even possible to store so much energy with our space constraints and physical resources?

          The debates and even this thread are filled with “we could totally go 100% renewables with political will and investments”. No you could not, that’s called wishful thinking. In reality you can’t force your way through technological innovation by throwing money and gathering political will, or else we would skip renewables and go straight to nuclear fusion.

          On thing that money and political will can help with, on the other hand, is to speed up and reducing costs to build nuclear. But somehow, you act like nuclear is inherently too slow to build, before an arbitrary date that you forget conveniently when we’re talking about renewable storage. It’s called hypocrisy and double standards.

          React to demand in minutes? Cute. Because most energy storage works by being pulled by demand directly rather than reacting to it, things change almost instantly.

          I just proved that your theory is wrong by bringing up empirical data gathered over a whole country, why do you keep insisting?