Ardubal

@Lats @ajsadauskas @australianpolitics The problem as I see it is that solar+wind+storage alone will not get you there ever. It will go up to 40% solar+wind, then maybe 10—30% with storage+solar+wind (depending on your technooptimism). And then you start replacing everything built every 20 to 30 years. Buys time, but not sustainable.

What you say is true: you need to build up the entire nuclear industry. International cooperation for bootstrapping will be important. Better get started.

@planet @clojure That link seems broken, even if it has a real date. But this one seems to work: https://xtdb.com/blog/dev-diary-feb-24

@ajsadauskas @australianpolitics

What would »grid scale solar & storage« cost, and how long would it take?

This is the competition:

1. Nuclear power plants
2. Storage of the same scale, filled by solar of the same scale

No one in the whole world has ever built (2). There is no mature industry, and no technology even matching the only grid scale storage we have so far (pumped hydro).

For (1), there are several international players with established designs.

I wouldn't stop either one.

@kuna I like the irony of it being a webp.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

I think you do not realize how much of our population only exists because of Haber and Bosch.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Sorry, but the term »degrowth« is a red flag for me.

Sure, we are getting more efficient over time. That's why even Germany's emissions fell over the last two decades.

But cutting power that is actually needed means poverty, and that will immediately end support for long-term thinking as well as severely limit our technical options.

There are too many people for romantic visions of rural self-sufficiency.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Yes, but I'd like to add that we need to think about lifetimes.

Let's imagine having built all we need in 30 years, through sometimes extreme efforts.

Current solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries have a lifetime of (a bit generously) 30 years. So we'd have to immediately start again with the entire effort just to keep it up. I'm worrying that this might not be … sustainable.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants

For a grid of 100 GW peak demand, you either need

- 100 GW nuclear plants, or

- 100 GW storage output, plus (100 GW × storage loss factor) storage input (volatiles or whatever), plus additional transmission capabilities, or

- a combination of 60% nuclear plus, say 10% hydro, plus 30% volatiles

I'd say some variation on the last looks most plausible to me.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

You seem to argue that our /current/ fossil grid would also need more storage, but it works just fine as is. Nuclear is better at load following than fossils, so what gives?

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Again, £50 per MWh is at current penetration levels of volatiles. This doesn't scale linearly.

See that you get to more-of-the-same-kind nuclear reactors. This does.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Nuclear is faster at load following than everything but pumped hydro and (very dirty) gas peakers. It was even a design requirement for the german Konvoi type in the 70s and 80s.

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

At least Germany never had subsidies for commercial nuclear power.

On the other hand, »renewables« are still subsidized heavily, and there is much moaning right now because the build-out is slowing down, as the best places are taken.

And France has no /real/ problem with its riverside plants. Last year (much bemoaned) had 0.05% (one twentieth of a percent) curtailing for river temperatures.