There’s pumped hydro, geothermal energy, and biofuel, in the future we’ll likely see some wave power as well. The point isn’t to have one technology for the entire grid but to have a diverse and distributed energy system.
For storage there are also many more options than just lithium ion batteries. We have sodium ion if you just want to swap battery for battery, but then there are also for example iron-air batteries that are projected to be dirt cheap, redox flow batteries, pressurized air, cryogenic energy, sand batteries for storing heat, hydrogen electrolysis, etc.
Not only will this make this a power grid that is less dependent on supply chains that are impacted by geopolitical conflicts, but it will also make it more resilient as the weather continues becoming more extreme.
Pumped hydro isn’t feasible everywhere, nor is geothermal
That’s the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.
Biofuel burning emits greenhouse gases
The point is that the greenhouse gases that they emit have already been captured from the atmosphere, which makes them carbon neutral.
Sodium ion batteries are a new technology and we don’t know how well it scales
It uses a lot of the same type of production as lithium ion, it is already being produced by some of the largest battery manufacturers on the planet, and being sold on the market, and we have years of research to give us a good idea of how it will evolve.
And the others aren’t proven technologies, so they may not be around for decades
Neither will fission plants. Even if we decided to start building out today, there are years before we actually see construction start, not to mention commissioning and eventually power production. We’re probably talking about the 2040s at that point.
No, the point is that the anti-nuclear crowd is trying to make it seem like there is no role for nuclear energy in the future alongside renewable energy
Some people, sure. But the person above wasn’t talking about completely removing all fission, just that we should have started building nuclear plants twenty years ago because it’s slow and comes with a massive up-front cost, and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install. Nuclear fission plants are also a very centralized source of energy, so if there are issues in the future as a result of climate change (similar to what they’ve been experiencing in France) then you lose a lot of grid capacity all at once while trying to resolve it.
I think nuclear is a reliable source of power, I’ve been an advocate for it, but I don’t believe it’s the right solution at this point in time.
The point is that the greenhouse gases that they emit have already been captured from the atmosphere, which makes them carbon neutral.
I’m on board with the rest of your argument, but that’s a very reductionist way to look at things. The concern with biofuel usage is, that there is inevitably going to be methane emissions, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So the zero sum game doesn’t really apply here.
On top of that, it’s comparatively inefficient, among other issues.
I wouldn’t bet on biomass to play a large role in a carbon neutral energy system.
I’m assuming you’re from the USA.
You already mentioned an electric grid for an entire country and that’s a solution right in front of you. It is very very very unlikely that no sun will shine and no wind will blow in your entire country at the same time.
You don’t really need base load power as much as nuclear proponents think you would. If you have a large enough, functioning grid, with well distributed renewable energy generation, these fluctuations can be compensated for.
Of course, batteries can help and make things easier. But you don’t even need to mine lithium for these anymore. Sodium batteries are already being used and that is an abundant resource. They have lower energy denity than lithium-batteries, which makes them less suitable for electric cars, but that’s not really a big issue for grid storage batteries.
Also you don’t need centralized massive battery plants, a decentralized system with smaller battery stations can work just as well, if not better.
So, backup batteries for an entire counry aren’t even as inconceivable as you may think.
And that’s all technology that’s already being used and doesn’t need a decade of planning to get a single powerplant up and running.
I don’t think that graphic shows what you’re trying to say. Or is at least a very bad choice to support your argument.
A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources. Nobody’s denying that.
I don’t even want to avoid nuclear like the plague or anything, I do get the appeal. But, as your graphic underlines, it is a rather very constant energy source, which means, that it doesn’t pair very well with fluctuating sources like solar and wind.
Since your not from the US, I’m gonna forget about that example for the time being, and concede, that there might be smaller national grids, that would indeed suffer more extremly from a lack of wind/solar inputs. But nuclear still isn’t a good fit then, because you’d actually need energy generation with a lower capacity factor, which can react to the fluctuating demand and generation in the grid.
Batteries are only one option here.
As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?
You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride.
The resources are abundant, easily available and are already being extracted for other purposes in large quantities.
So, yes, I think they will be feasible for the entire planet and it won’t take decades to get the resources and build infrastructure to make them. The technology isn’t all that different from other batteries, they can use existing infrastructure.
I don’t have time to write more, right now, but I hope you can see some of the issues here.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way):
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.
Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I’d like to leave it here for the time being.
I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.
I admit, I’m not innocent in that regard, that’s why I used the word “we”, but I don’t want to be accused of mansplaining basic English to you as well, so I’ll leave it at that. ;)
But I’m kinda hard pressed, to not sound like I’m trying to attack you personally, when you keep insisting how basic some of that stuff is. I don’t know how I’m supposed to point out mistakes you’re making in a way that doesn’t feel like an attack under those circumstances. Really, any correction I’m making will seem like I’m assuming you don’t understand basic concepts.
Nonetheless, I’m gonna keep doing that, because, frankly, I think you’re making mistakes there. Your idea, that the analysis of the data is so basic, that pointing to the capacity factor proves your argument is one of them.
The capacity factor for nuclear power plants is so high, because they run almost all the time at or close to nameplate power. And yes, that means they have to be reliable to get to that number.
But the inverse is not also true. A lower capacity factor doesn’t necessarily indicate that an energy source is unreliable. It just says, that it’s not running all the time at its specified peak power.
A brief (hypothetical) thought experiment:
if you had an NPP that could easily and quickly adjust its power output and you used it at full power to get through those windless winter nights, but tuned it down during the day or shut it off completely on summer days, what would that mean for its average capacity factor?
Of course, it would decrease, because you wouldn’t run it near peak output all the time anymore.
Does that mean it’s suddenly an unreliable energy source? Of course not.
That’s also what I meant by saying that you needed energy sources with a lower capacity factor to complement a solar/wind heavy system. I admit, that was horrible wording on my part, because it confused cause and effect.
What I meant is, it’s not the low capacity factor that makes a generator suitable to fulfill that role, but any generator taking that role, is inevitably going to have a lower capacity factor, no matter how reliable.
You can see, that they are horribly low. That’s not because they are super unreliable, but because they are rarely being used at their rated power. The best thing about gas turbines is that their power output can quickly be adjusted, and that’s how they’re being employed.
As to the capacity factor of solar/wind power plants:
Of course, it’s going to be lower. Naturally, they can’t run at their peak power output all the time, but nobody expects them to do that anyway. A system could only be called unreliable, if it didn’t deliever, what was expected of it. Just pointing to the capacity factor is simply not a good indicator of reliabilty, or rather unreliability, as should be clear by the examples given above.
And that’s why I think that the diagram you provided, doesn’t show, what you wanted it to show.
There are some good ones and diverse ideas for many locations. The reason they are not yet implemented is because they are not prioritised.
Base load is not the concern. Adaptive load is what needs to be there to supplement the grid. Nuclear can not provide that.
Removed by mod
There’s pumped hydro, geothermal energy, and biofuel, in the future we’ll likely see some wave power as well. The point isn’t to have one technology for the entire grid but to have a diverse and distributed energy system.
For storage there are also many more options than just lithium ion batteries. We have sodium ion if you just want to swap battery for battery, but then there are also for example iron-air batteries that are projected to be dirt cheap, redox flow batteries, pressurized air, cryogenic energy, sand batteries for storing heat, hydrogen electrolysis, etc.
Not only will this make this a power grid that is less dependent on supply chains that are impacted by geopolitical conflicts, but it will also make it more resilient as the weather continues becoming more extreme.
Removed by mod
That’s the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.
The point is that the greenhouse gases that they emit have already been captured from the atmosphere, which makes them carbon neutral.
It uses a lot of the same type of production as lithium ion, it is already being produced by some of the largest battery manufacturers on the planet, and being sold on the market, and we have years of research to give us a good idea of how it will evolve.
Neither will fission plants. Even if we decided to start building out today, there are years before we actually see construction start, not to mention commissioning and eventually power production. We’re probably talking about the 2040s at that point.
Some people, sure. But the person above wasn’t talking about completely removing all fission, just that we should have started building nuclear plants twenty years ago because it’s slow and comes with a massive up-front cost, and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install. Nuclear fission plants are also a very centralized source of energy, so if there are issues in the future as a result of climate change (similar to what they’ve been experiencing in France) then you lose a lot of grid capacity all at once while trying to resolve it.
I think nuclear is a reliable source of power, I’ve been an advocate for it, but I don’t believe it’s the right solution at this point in time.
I’m on board with the rest of your argument, but that’s a very reductionist way to look at things. The concern with biofuel usage is, that there is inevitably going to be methane emissions, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So the zero sum game doesn’t really apply here.
On top of that, it’s comparatively inefficient, among other issues.
I wouldn’t bet on biomass to play a large role in a carbon neutral energy system.
Removed by mod
Nice example of denial. Thanks.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m assuming you’re from the USA.
You already mentioned an electric grid for an entire country and that’s a solution right in front of you. It is very very very unlikely that no sun will shine and no wind will blow in your entire country at the same time.
You don’t really need base load power as much as nuclear proponents think you would. If you have a large enough, functioning grid, with well distributed renewable energy generation, these fluctuations can be compensated for.
Of course, batteries can help and make things easier. But you don’t even need to mine lithium for these anymore. Sodium batteries are already being used and that is an abundant resource. They have lower energy denity than lithium-batteries, which makes them less suitable for electric cars, but that’s not really a big issue for grid storage batteries. Also you don’t need centralized massive battery plants, a decentralized system with smaller battery stations can work just as well, if not better. So, backup batteries for an entire counry aren’t even as inconceivable as you may think.
And that’s all technology that’s already being used and doesn’t need a decade of planning to get a single powerplant up and running.
Removed by mod
I don’t think that graphic shows what you’re trying to say. Or is at least a very bad choice to support your argument. A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources. Nobody’s denying that.
I don’t even want to avoid nuclear like the plague or anything, I do get the appeal. But, as your graphic underlines, it is a rather very constant energy source, which means, that it doesn’t pair very well with fluctuating sources like solar and wind.
Since your not from the US, I’m gonna forget about that example for the time being, and concede, that there might be smaller national grids, that would indeed suffer more extremly from a lack of wind/solar inputs. But nuclear still isn’t a good fit then, because you’d actually need energy generation with a lower capacity factor, which can react to the fluctuating demand and generation in the grid.
Batteries are only one option here.
You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride. The resources are abundant, easily available and are already being extracted for other purposes in large quantities.
So, yes, I think they will be feasible for the entire planet and it won’t take decades to get the resources and build infrastructure to make them. The technology isn’t all that different from other batteries, they can use existing infrastructure.
I don’t have time to write more, right now, but I hope you can see some of the issues here.
Removed by mod
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
You can find capacity factors here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b (And in the similar table focussing on fossil power)
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.
The PDF containing technical notes explains, how capacity factor is being calculated. See p. 21 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/AppendixC.pdf
Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I’d like to leave it here for the time being. I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.
Removed by mod
I admit, I’m not innocent in that regard, that’s why I used the word “we”, but I don’t want to be accused of mansplaining basic English to you as well, so I’ll leave it at that. ;)
But I’m kinda hard pressed, to not sound like I’m trying to attack you personally, when you keep insisting how basic some of that stuff is. I don’t know how I’m supposed to point out mistakes you’re making in a way that doesn’t feel like an attack under those circumstances. Really, any correction I’m making will seem like I’m assuming you don’t understand basic concepts.
Nonetheless, I’m gonna keep doing that, because, frankly, I think you’re making mistakes there. Your idea, that the analysis of the data is so basic, that pointing to the capacity factor proves your argument is one of them.
The capacity factor for nuclear power plants is so high, because they run almost all the time at or close to nameplate power. And yes, that means they have to be reliable to get to that number. But the inverse is not also true. A lower capacity factor doesn’t necessarily indicate that an energy source is unreliable. It just says, that it’s not running all the time at its specified peak power.
A brief (hypothetical) thought experiment: if you had an NPP that could easily and quickly adjust its power output and you used it at full power to get through those windless winter nights, but tuned it down during the day or shut it off completely on summer days, what would that mean for its average capacity factor?
Of course, it would decrease, because you wouldn’t run it near peak output all the time anymore.
Does that mean it’s suddenly an unreliable energy source? Of course not.
That’s also what I meant by saying that you needed energy sources with a lower capacity factor to complement a solar/wind heavy system. I admit, that was horrible wording on my part, because it confused cause and effect.
What I meant is, it’s not the low capacity factor that makes a generator suitable to fulfill that role, but any generator taking that role, is inevitably going to have a lower capacity factor, no matter how reliable.
If you look at the capacity factors for natural gas power plants using gas turbines, which you can find here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_a
You can see, that they are horribly low. That’s not because they are super unreliable, but because they are rarely being used at their rated power. The best thing about gas turbines is that their power output can quickly be adjusted, and that’s how they’re being employed.
As to the capacity factor of solar/wind power plants: Of course, it’s going to be lower. Naturally, they can’t run at their peak power output all the time, but nobody expects them to do that anyway. A system could only be called unreliable, if it didn’t deliever, what was expected of it. Just pointing to the capacity factor is simply not a good indicator of reliabilty, or rather unreliability, as should be clear by the examples given above.
And that’s why I think that the diagram you provided, doesn’t show, what you wanted it to show.
Removed by mod
There are some good ones and diverse ideas for many locations. The reason they are not yet implemented is because they are not prioritised. Base load is not the concern. Adaptive load is what needs to be there to supplement the grid. Nuclear can not provide that.
Removed by mod