Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand?
China is expanding so fast that they are accused of overproducing, and so supply capacity is not only there, it can increase further.
Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
The main benefit of wind is in battery reduction. A capacity equal to lowest night demand. Wind often produces longer hours than solar per day. The predictability of solar allows clear power forecasts, and then enough solar for needs with a small grid connection allowing both monetizing surpluses, and having resilience in shortfalls. Nuclear has no economic or climate roles, for being both too expensive and of too long a delay.
I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries,
Hydrogen is the solution for having unlimited renewables and being able to monetize all of their surpluses. It is a bonus to be able to provide emergency/peak power, including renting a vehicle to have bonus value of powering a building. For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
Using existing infrastructure for backup/resilience as renewables are ramped up is the ideal. Was German last government’s approach. Cheaper (free) than even maintaining/refurbishing aging nuclear, allowing for private sector to expand renewables (also free). Standby payments to stay open and ready is cheap, and permits rapdid renewables to decrease their peaker use.
“Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7. Costs being dominated by its initial building, means that half capacity is double the breakeven power revenue. Nuclear needs to suppress cheaper energy to be viable, and in the ultra optimistic (Vogtle took 20 years) 10 year buildout period, renewables must be suppressed so that when the ON switch is set, full power sales occur.
France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe
France has understood that building new nuclear should wait until 2060s, when possible construction technology is advanced enough. The heyday of nuclear came when electricity demand was growing fast, and fears of available reserves and geopolitics affecting alternatives. Coal is also excessively polluting and dirty, in a locally displeasing way. The environment of alternatives is much different today.
“Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7.
Excess nuclear production at night recharges batteries for daytime use, reducing the need for battery and solar rollout. Excess solar production during the day recharges batteries for nighttime use, reducing the need for baseload supply. Daytime use is higher than night time use, so this is pretty close to the ideal setup, no?
Use each non-polluting source for what it’s best at. You don’t need any one source to be the primary supplier of electricity, you want a diverse enough set that you get an optimal mix to keep costs and pollution low and reliability high. Mix in some wind and others for opportunistic, cheap generation.
Yes, both can charge batteries. Solar charges then at 10x less cost, and combined solar+batteries provides the same total “baseload function” at 2x-4x less cost, and can be up and running in 1 year instead of 10, and expanded the year after that. It’s even a myth that nuclear uses less land. You can use the land under solar, and you don’t need exclusion zones around reactors and uranium mines
It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.
I’m not an expert here though, I’m merely saying a lot of people would be fine with a higher initial investment if the long term benefits justify it.
It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.
No. Nuclear also has fairly high operations/staff costs, and fuel is highly variable and more expensive the more other nuclear plants there are. You mentioned the possibility of charging batteries (Hydrogen also possible) from nuclear, to handle peak day use/transmission, but batteries pair better with solar, and as a total package can serve same “baseload” purpose as nuclear but cheaper. There are no long term benefits to nuclear… economic ones ignoring weapons motivations.
Yeah, I just think of hydrogen as a battery, and it can totally be a closed loop system.
batteries… cheaper
Is that actually true though? As in, if we add up initial installation cost + running cost + replacement cost long term (say, 50 years), are batteries generally cheaper?
If so, then I’d agree. But my understanding is that nuclear gets really competitive the longer it runs.
if we add up initial installation cost + running cost + replacement cost long term (say, 50 years), are batteries generally cheaper?
LFP batteries are the cheapest and also last the longest. Race car EVs want the more energy dense NMC chemistry that was the original lithium formula. With 4 hour storage/discharge instead of smaller 1 or 2 hours, LFP batteries can last 10000 cycles which is 30 years on a daily charge/discharge cycle. A couple of years ago, this battery chemistry was $300/kwh and still cheaper than nuclear. They are now below $100/kwh, with some Chinese EVs having a free car at $300/kwh price for just the battery pack component. EVs permit a private investment to provide grid service that helps pay for EV, but at no rate payer passed down capital cost.
Batteries don’t really have operating costs. Nuclear has a lot of maintenance costs especially when its time to push plants past 60 years. Diablo Canyon is spending $5B for 5 year extension. That could buy 5 times the solar power (at least more total power output over 5 years) for 30+ years instead.
China is expanding so fast that they are accused of overproducing, and so supply capacity is not only there, it can increase further.
The main benefit of wind is in battery reduction. A capacity equal to lowest night demand. Wind often produces longer hours than solar per day. The predictability of solar allows clear power forecasts, and then enough solar for needs with a small grid connection allowing both monetizing surpluses, and having resilience in shortfalls. Nuclear has no economic or climate roles, for being both too expensive and of too long a delay.
Hydrogen is the solution for having unlimited renewables and being able to monetize all of their surpluses. It is a bonus to be able to provide emergency/peak power, including renting a vehicle to have bonus value of powering a building. For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
And that’s the issue. Nuclear is an effective alternative to fossil fuels and can make sense in many areas. What you need is:
France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe, and they’re not particularly well-suited for it.
It’s not a panacea, but it should absolutely be considered as a replacement for fossil fuels if energy demand is high enough.
Using existing infrastructure for backup/resilience as renewables are ramped up is the ideal. Was German last government’s approach. Cheaper (free) than even maintaining/refurbishing aging nuclear, allowing for private sector to expand renewables (also free). Standby payments to stay open and ready is cheap, and permits rapdid renewables to decrease their peaker use.
“Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7. Costs being dominated by its initial building, means that half capacity is double the breakeven power revenue. Nuclear needs to suppress cheaper energy to be viable, and in the ultra optimistic (Vogtle took 20 years) 10 year buildout period, renewables must be suppressed so that when the ON switch is set, full power sales occur.
France has understood that building new nuclear should wait until 2060s, when possible construction technology is advanced enough. The heyday of nuclear came when electricity demand was growing fast, and fears of available reserves and geopolitics affecting alternatives. Coal is also excessively polluting and dirty, in a locally displeasing way. The environment of alternatives is much different today.
Excess nuclear production at night recharges batteries for daytime use, reducing the need for battery and solar rollout. Excess solar production during the day recharges batteries for nighttime use, reducing the need for baseload supply. Daytime use is higher than night time use, so this is pretty close to the ideal setup, no?
Use each non-polluting source for what it’s best at. You don’t need any one source to be the primary supplier of electricity, you want a diverse enough set that you get an optimal mix to keep costs and pollution low and reliability high. Mix in some wind and others for opportunistic, cheap generation.
Yes, both can charge batteries. Solar charges then at 10x less cost, and combined solar+batteries provides the same total “baseload function” at 2x-4x less cost, and can be up and running in 1 year instead of 10, and expanded the year after that. It’s even a myth that nuclear uses less land. You can use the land under solar, and you don’t need exclusion zones around reactors and uranium mines
It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.
I’m not an expert here though, I’m merely saying a lot of people would be fine with a higher initial investment if the long term benefits justify it.
No. Nuclear also has fairly high operations/staff costs, and fuel is highly variable and more expensive the more other nuclear plants there are. You mentioned the possibility of charging batteries (Hydrogen also possible) from nuclear, to handle peak day use/transmission, but batteries pair better with solar, and as a total package can serve same “baseload” purpose as nuclear but cheaper. There are no long term benefits to nuclear… economic ones ignoring weapons motivations.
Yeah, I just think of hydrogen as a battery, and it can totally be a closed loop system.
Is that actually true though? As in, if we add up initial installation cost + running cost + replacement cost long term (say, 50 years), are batteries generally cheaper?
If so, then I’d agree. But my understanding is that nuclear gets really competitive the longer it runs.
LFP batteries are the cheapest and also last the longest. Race car EVs want the more energy dense NMC chemistry that was the original lithium formula. With 4 hour storage/discharge instead of smaller 1 or 2 hours, LFP batteries can last 10000 cycles which is 30 years on a daily charge/discharge cycle. A couple of years ago, this battery chemistry was $300/kwh and still cheaper than nuclear. They are now below $100/kwh, with some Chinese EVs having a free car at $300/kwh price for just the battery pack component. EVs permit a private investment to provide grid service that helps pay for EV, but at no rate payer passed down capital cost.
Batteries don’t really have operating costs. Nuclear has a lot of maintenance costs especially when its time to push plants past 60 years. Diablo Canyon is spending $5B for 5 year extension. That could buy 5 times the solar power (at least more total power output over 5 years) for 30+ years instead.