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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Each has a somewhat different engineering design to account for conditions of where it’s built; and
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.
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.
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?
Is your contention that a combination of all the methods I listed is insufficient for a renewable future that doesn’t include nuclear?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you really think a nuclear plant is just a building?
Wow.
Anyway, nice talking with you.
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:
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.
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.
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/
Iron-air batteries seem rather promising for being cheap and scalable