The value of resilience

[nwdiver]

If you had to build and maintain small gas turbines and keep them ready to go on line at a moment notice you would go broke waiting for those times.

??? That's literally how the grid works. There's a gas plant near my house that hasn't operated in 2 years. Still maintained in case they need it.

Do you know of a better way to meet the coincident peak demand that only occurs a few times a year? How is nuclear a better answer? It costs $1/w to build a gas turbine and $14/kW/yr to keep in reserve. Nuclear costs $15/w to build and $120/kW/yr to keep in reserve.

How.... how is spending $120/kW/yr cheaper than $14???

I never claimed battery storage is 'cheap and efficient'; In fact most research is suggesting it's actually cheaper to overbuild solar and wind ~4x than to use storage. Which makes more sense the cheaper it gets. Even if you'r curtailing ~75% of renewables so you have enough to meet demand when there's less sun and wind it's STILL cheaper than nuclear. As I said before. The purpose of storage is to reduce curtailment. As I said before. Demand Response is the first solution to curtailment.

At some point storage will make sense. If you want 100MW during peak hours in the evening storage is the best solution. If you want 2GW available during fire season for a few weeks gas turbines are the best solution. If you want to reduce annual emissions wind and solar are the best solutions. If you want to waste billions of dollars that could do ~6x more good elsewhere nuclear is the best solution.

Sorry. But you are dreaming that large scale storage will come cheap and do the job when needed.

LOL! Says the guy that thinks nuclear is cost effective The cost of storage has declined ~90% in the past 10 years. Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. I'm not 'dreaming'... it's called extrapolation

Even at todays prices storage is pretty much where we need it. ~$200/kWh with a cycle life of ~5000 cycles. That's $0.04/kWh.

The idea that we don't have 'mass storage' => mass storage isn't possible is idiotic. That's like claiming the fact I can't defend against Tigers means Tiger defense is impossible. I don't have a defense because I don't need one!

Why would XYZ utility invest $50M in storage to burn 50MWh of gas in 5 hours instead of now when they can invest $50M in solar or wind and just reduce fuel burn?

UNTIL THERE IS SURPLUS SOLAR OR WIND STORAGE MAKES ~NO SENSE;

=> WE WILL NOT SEE 'MASS' STORAGE UNTIL THERE IS 'MASS' CURTAILMENT!!!

[SunEagle]

??? That's literally how the grid works. There's a gas plant near my house that hasn't operated in 2 years. Still maintained in case they need it.

Do you know of a better way to meet the coincident peak demand that only occurs a few times a year? How is nuclear a better answer? It costs $1/w to build a gas turbine and $14/kW/yr to keep in reserve. Nuclear costs $15/w to build and $120/kW/yr to keep in reserve.

How.... how is spending $120/kW/yr cheaper than $14???

I never claimed battery storage is 'cheap and efficient'; In fact most research is suggesting it's actually cheaper to overbuild solar and wind ~4x than to use storage. Which makes more sense the cheaper it gets. Even if you'r curtailing ~75% of renewables so you have enough to meet demand when there's less sun and wind it's STILL cheaper than nuclear. As I said before. The purpose of storage is to reduce curtailment. As I said before. Demand Response is the first solution to curtailment.

At some point storage will make sense. If you want 100MW during peak hours in the evening storage is the best solution. If you want 2GW available during fire season for a few weeks gas turbines are the best solution. If you want to reduce annual emissions wind and solar are the best solutions. If you want to waste billions of dollars that could do ~6x more good elsewhere nuclear is the best solution.




LOL! Says the guy that thinks nuclear is cost effective The cost of storage has declined ~90% in the past 10 years. Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. I'm not 'dreaming'... it's called extrapolation

Even at todays prices storage is pretty much where we need it. ~$200/kWh with a cycle life of ~5000 cycles. That's $0.04/kWh.

The idea that we don't have 'mass storage' => mass storage isn't possible is idiotic. That's like claiming the fact I can't defend against Tigers means Tiger defense is impossible. I don't have a defense because I don't need one!

Why would XYZ utility invest $50M in storage to burn 50MWh of gas in 5 hours instead of now when they can invest $50M in solar or wind and just reduce fuel burn?

UNTIL THERE IS SURPLUS SOLAR OR WIND STORAGE MAKES ~NO SENSE;

=> WE WILL NOT SEE 'MASS' STORAGE UNTIL THERE IS 'MASS' CURTAILMENT!!!

We are obviously way apart on our opinions so instead of taking up space on the forum I will just say we agree to disagree.

That will be my last post on this thread.

[nwdiver]

We are obviously way apart on our opinions so instead of taking up space on the forum I will just say we agree to disagree.

That will be my last post on this thread.

Math isn't an 'opinion'; Nuclear costs 6x more per kWh vs solar or wind, that's not an 'opinion', that's math.

I worked in nuclear power for 15 years. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. I've been installing solar for 8 years. I doubt there are many people that have seen both sides of the 'debate' as I have. Please accept the reality that new nuclear has no place on the grid. There is no scenario where it makes any sense with solar and wind now <$1/w and EVs able to soak up surplus renewables reducing curtailment. Nuclear advocacy has evolved into a 'cult' immune to facts. That bothers me.

[bcroe]

You seem to advocate that all decisions be made based solely on dollars. As for mass energy
storage, the problem has been worked on for a couple centuries, and I will not be holding my
breath awaiting a solution. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

You seem to advocate that all decisions be made based solely on dollars. As for mass energy
storage, the problem has been worked on for a couple centuries, and I will not be holding my
breath awaiting a solution. Bruce Roe

'A couple centuries'? We've been trying to find a way to store electricity since before electricity?

There's a reason we have the saying 'necessity is the mother of invention'; What's the economic advantage to 'mass storage'? For the 3rd time.... UNTIL THERE IS >>>SURPLUS<<< renewables there really isn't much benefit to 'mass' storage.

I'm not saying 'dollars' is the only factor. But it IS 'A' factor. It's certainly NOT... NOT a factor. It's not like the economics are close... 6x is not close.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say I have a magic black box that will produce 1kW 24/7/365. It will cost you $15k and $10/mo. Would you be interested? Why on Earth would I want that? For $15k I can get 10kW of solar and 20kWh of batteries that will provide twice as much energy per day with similar reliability. Even with the 1kW magic box I would STILL need some form of storage to buffer when I want AC or any other loads that need >1kW. My peak demand is ~10kW. Should I buy 10 magic boxes for $150k? Nuclear is in a similar predicament. Solar, Wind and Storage are just more cost effective ESPECIALLY when we generally don't need capacity.


Serious Question:
Let's say I'm trying to decide whether I should spend $15B on 1GW of nuclear and produce 8TWh/yr of clean energy or $15B on 15GW of on-shore wind to produce 55TWh/yr of clean energy. Explain why Nuclear is the better option. Explain your 'opinion' on why 8 is a bigger number than 55......

[nwdiver]

You seem to advocate that all decisions be made based solely on dollars. As for mass energy
storage, the problem has been worked on for a couple centuries, and I will not be holding my
breath awaiting a solution. Bruce Roe

At some point the cost does become the primary determining factor. If you're trying to decide between two similar items the qualities of one might outweigh the other if it's 10% more expensive. Maybe 15%. Probably not >50%. No way 600%. Nuclear is 600% more expensive per kWh than solar or wind and that gap is widening. I agree nuclear deserves a premium over renewables. Maybe a 200% premium... NOT 600%. What premium do you think it deserves.

There's a reason the adage 'Necessity is the mother of invention' exists. We haven't had electricity for >1 century and there's still no 'need' for 'mass storage' as I've mentioned several times.

[J.P.M.]

Math isn't an 'opinion'; Nuclear costs 6x more per kWh vs solar or wind, that's not an 'opinion', that's math.

I worked in nuclear power for 15 years. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. I've been installing solar for 8 years. I doubt there are many people that have seen both sides of the 'debate' as I have. Please accept the reality that new nuclear has no place on the grid. There is no scenario where it makes any sense with solar and wind now <$1/w and EVs able to soak up surplus renewables reducing curtailment. Nuclear advocacy has evolved into a 'cult' immune to facts. That bothers me.

If nuclear advocacy has evolved into a cult, it seems to me that alternate energy advocacy has also evolved into a "cult".
Also, it seems to me, cults or those who get sucked into them often have an overdeveloped trait of often being immune to facts.

[nwdiver]

If nuclear advocacy has evolved into a cult, it seems to me that alternate energy advocacy has also evolved into a "cult".
Also, it seems to me, cults or those who get sucked into them often have an overdeveloped trait of often being immune to facts.

My definition of a 'cult' is being unswayed by facts. Show me a 1GW nuclear plant that can be built on-time and on-budget for ~$4B and I'll support more nuclear power. If wind was still >$5/w or fell apart after 5 years I wouldn't support wind. If solar was still >$10/w I wouldn't support solar. But those aren't the facts. The FACTS are that new nuclear costs ~$15/w. Wind and solar are ~$1/w. I'm a slave to reality. That's the opposite of a cult.

As I mentioned before. I grew up in the nuclear industry. I have a degree in nuclear engineering. I was a HUGE supporter of nuclear 10 years ago. My support for nuclear started shifting in ~2014... with the facts. By 2017 after the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and cancelation of VC Summer, based on the facts further support for nuclear wasn't possible. It was clear beyond any reasonable doubt with an objective view of the facts that thermal nuclear power had no future.

If someone invents a nuclear power source that can produce electricity for $5/MWh I'll support that over wind and solar. But that's physically impossible if you need to pay to heat water then pay to cool it as thermal nuclear does. Physics.

[Ampster]

If nuclear advocacy has evolved into a cult, it seems to me that alternate energy advocacy has also evolved into a "cult".
Also, it seems to me, cults or those who get sucked into them often have an overdeveloped trait of often being immune to facts.

Perhaps advocacy has evolved in that way. The implementation on an International level has been driven by economics. Often those decisions are fact based.

[J.P.M.]

Often those decisions are fact based.

Or perhaps based on what are perceived as facts at the time.

Physicians once drained blood from the sick and dying under the perception they were helping their patient.

Asbestos was once a common insulation material.

Nuclear power will make electricity too cheap to meter.

Solar power will make electricity too cheap to meter.

The list, the ignorance and the B.S. all go on.

[nwdiver]

I love how nuclear power is somehow the only industry where being 3x over budget and taking ~twice as long is seen as being remotely 'acceptable'. I'm installing a 5.5kW array this weekend. Can you imagine if I told the customer that his 5.5kW array was going to cost $48k not $16k and we'll be installing sometime next year?!

Watts Bar 2 was hailed as the triumphant return of nuclear power when it finally went critical for the first time in 2016. Except... it was supposed to be completed in 1980 for <$1B NOT 2016 for >$6B!

It's not like these are isolated cases. Look up 'Cancelled nuclear plants'. There's an entire wiki covering the sad failed history of nuclear power. My 'favorite' is Bellefonte. Look that one up.

Or perhaps based on what are perceived as facts at the time.

Vogtle is 2GW and will cost $30B. That's ~$15/w; that's not 'perception'... that's math.

Utility scale solar and wind can be built for <$1/w now. That's not 'perception'... that's math.

Energy from new nuclear costs $120/MWh. Not 'perception'... math.

Energy from solar and wind is <$20/MWh. Not 'perception'... math.

Asbestos was once a common insulation material.

Nuclear power will make electricity too cheap to meter.

And our acceptance of Asbestos evolved with the facts... so why hasn't the acceptance of nuclear also evolved with some people?

[bcroe]

'A couple centuries'? We've been trying to find a way to store electricity since before electricity?

There's a reason we have the saying 'necessity is the mother of invention

Please note the Leyden Jar electrical storage device was invented in 1745, and the battery
powered telegraph grew up as an essential part of the railroads.

When cars came around more than a century ago, needed battery storage pretty much killed
the electric cars back then. Check your facts. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

Please note the Leyden Jar electrical storage device was invented in 1745, and the battery
powered telegraph grew up as an essential part of the railroads.

When cars came around more than a century ago, needed battery storage pretty much killed
the electric cars back then. Check your facts. Bruce Roe

Not the same context. And even in 1745 what would charge the battery??? Why not just use the thing changing the battery directly? The context of 'mass storage' is grid storage. There's no 'need' to have mass storage on the grid. The very few places were grid storage is used it has very limited use and value; For the 4th time UNTIL THERE IS SUPLUS RENEWABLE ENERGY; Seriously... what part of that confuses people? Why would CAISO invest $500M in storage to burn MORE gas at a different time when they can invest $500M in wind or solar to just burn LESS? The lack of 'mass GRID storage' is ~99% about necessity NOT about ability.

Explain to me the benefit of a 10GWh grid battery when >95% of wind and solar generation is consumed directly by demand. When >20% is being curtailed because renewables is often ~40GW and demand is 30GW then yes... mass grid storage will make sense. We're at least ~10 years away from that. Math.

I started building a 'toy' off-grid system. I started with 500w of solar. Just ran it during the day and consumed all the production directly. Adding storage made no sense since I could consume >100% of what the panels produced as it was produced. Then I added 500w more for 1kW. Production was actually > Demand so... I put my water heater on a timer (Demand Response) adding storage STILL made no sense. Now I have 2kW and I was regularly curtailing production so I added some storage and went off-grid 24/7. Get it?

And battery storage for cars is finally catching up. Check your facts

[bcroe]

If you can not admit that we were already trying to master electrical problems in
Ben Franklins time, or that the first electric cars had range problems, I do not see
how we can have a meaningful conversation. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

If you can not admit that we were already trying to master electrical problems in
Ben Franklins time, or that the first electric cars had range problems, I do not see
how we can have a meaningful conversation. Bruce Roe

??? Again... completely different context and completely separate topic. This is about 'mass grid storage'; Balancing supply and demand. Specifically nuclear vs renewables.

If you're going to try to change the subject then yeah... kinda hard to have a meaningful conversation.

But...I've often wondered... if you think we need nuclear power because sufficient storage is impossible what's the magic ceiling? 100GWh? 1TWh? 10TWh? What level of storage do you think is impossible to achieve and why?