this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
154 points (94.3% liked)

World News

32047 readers
500 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Get those construction contacts signed!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Batteries of all kinds, compressed air, green hydrogen, pumped storage, flywheels, etc.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I took graduate level courses in storage with these technologies at scale. Neat that this knowledge is useful again.

Pumped and compressed require specific geologic formations. Most of the sites for pumped have already been developed in NA. There's room for growth for compressed, but compressed also suffers from losses when the air that's pumped into the crust cools. Hopefully, there are undeveloped compressed sites near regions with energy demands.

Flywheels are a neat idea and still just that: an idea. It's yet to been demonstrated they can reliably do more than grid frequency moderation. The reason it's not very attractive to investors is that we don't have materials to match the energy density of other technologies.

Green hydrogen is also just an idea at the present. Nobody's pursues this because of losses incurred generating hydrogen from water. I want this one to work!

Finally, batteries. Do you think there are enough metals on the planet to build enough batteries for current and future demand?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is your contention that a combination of all the methods I listed is insufficient for a renewable future that doesn’t include nuclear?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, nuclear is the only one that's sufficiently developed, with a supply chain that's sufficiently developed, that's ready for deployment right now.

The others could get there some day, and I hope they do, but we cannot wait for that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have it backwards. Each new nuclear plant is essentially bespoke, that's why they cost so much. It's wind and solar that have an established supply chain.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we're misunderstanding. Nukes, like wind and solar, are made out of concrete and steel which have developed supply chains. It's the storage part that is not developed for renewables.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need to look into how nuclear plants are built. They're custom made for each site, there's no supply chain there. Why do you think they nearly always end up over budget and behind schedule? A robust supply chain prevents those things.

By your logic I could say that pumped hydro storage has a robust supply chain because dams can be made out of concrete.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nuclear plants are built like every other building is built: construction. "Construction" is what happens after the "supply chain" delivers the material. It assembles the materials into the thing. They're related and different concepts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Do you really think a nuclear plant is just a building?

Wow.

Anyway, nice talking with you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're not completely wrong but neither is the person you're replying to. While the raw materials of construction may have an established supply chain, NPPs are unique in at least two ways:

  1. Each has a somewhat different engineering design to account for conditions of where it's built; and
  2. Since the designs differ, the construction process necessarily differs and, due to uniqueness, is inherently more expensive and complicated than just building something off-the-shelf or standardized like a house or office building (or, relevant here, a wind farm).

Raw materials is only part of the supply chain: there's construction (as you mentioned), but also engineering and design.

The expense of NPPs, including going over-budget and having to adjust engineering designs for new regulations, is largely because NPPs are regulated to "internalize" their externalities. Whereas a coal plant is allowed to pollute in gathering the raw materials, is allowed to pollute in producing electricity, and is allowed to pollute in disposal, and has weak safety standards overall, NPPs must be mostly self-contained and over-engineered for safety. If coal plants had to control all of their pollution, be earthquake resistant, be airplane-hijacking resistant, etc they would also routinely be over-budget and have delays, and have unique designs for each plant. Now, there is something like a plateau here, where at some point we will have decided on a fixed set of regulations, and common design features can be identified and re-used more than they are now, and therefore NPPs could become less expensive. But we aren't there yet. Comparatively, we do have a practically fixed set of regulations and common design features for much of the renewable sources.

Currently, other renewables get to benefit from existing supply chains where NPPs can't really, but it doesn't have to remain that way, and there's reason to believe it will remain that way.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not. We HAVE to have baseline power generation. Today that comes by either burning fossil fuels, or nuclear, with hydro/geo etc making up a trivial percentage. Only oil industry propaganda conflates nuclear with solar/wind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's base load, not base line and we don't have to have it.

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-power/

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Iron-air batteries seem rather promising for being cheap and scalable