• BombOmOm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    47
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The question has always been what does one do when the renewables aren’t providing enough power (ex: nights, etc). The current solution is natural gas. It would be a big improvement if we would use a carbon-free source like nuclear instead.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is an old and proven method for load balancing intermittent power sources. Would like to see more of that as geography permits.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          Actually it isn’t if you stop only looking at places that are also suitable as power plant, that is, have a big river flowing through them.

          You can do pumped hydro in an old mineshaft.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Can you? To store the energy you need to pump up; to use it you need to flow back down. Where is the ‘down’ or ‘up’ from a mine shaft?

            I’d also question if the volume would be worth it.

            Edit: maybe you are thinking compressed air?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              …the up is at the surface and the down is at the bottom of the mine shaft? I’m not talking about horizontal ones, of course. You let water in, generating power, and then, to regenerate empty space and with that the capacity to again generate power, you spend energy to pump it up.

              As to volume, there’s some gigantic mineshafts, but even small ones might warrant small installations it’s not like some pipes and a pump and generator are much of an investment. Of course, don’t try that in a salt mine geology will play an important part.

              And lastly: Mineshafts aren’t the only option. There’s a lot of mountains, and they have many sides, and also plateaus and valleys. Build two concrete basins, connect them via pipe, ship in water from somewhere, voila, pumped hydro storage.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                I guess I wasn’t clear where on the surface the storage is. Do they still make a dam type area to store the ‘high’ water, or is it just a different part of the mine which is closer to the surface?

                I was able to find some mine numbers… yeah; insane. Especially something like an open cut mine which is functionally already lake shaped.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        That will not remotely cover baseline loads and is not without significant efficiency loss due to the pumping phase.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          All commonly used forms of energy storage have some efficiency loss. Pumped storage is not perfect but my understanding is that it usually comes at a 10-25% loss, which isn’t all that shabby all things considered.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      According to the article, the researchers concluded that nuclear reactors are not a good fit for that role.

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      The growing idea is to just have a shit load of renewables, everywhere. The wind is always blowing somewhere, and the sun shines through the clouds. If you have a ridiculous excess total capacity then even when you’re running at limited capacity you could still cover the demand. Basically, most of our renewable infrastructure would actually be curtailed or offline a lot of the time.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        And that opens up opportunities for energy intensive industries like aluminium or hydrogen production to run whilst there’s an excess of energy

        • TWeaK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I’m all for green hydrogen production, it’s using hydrogen in place of fossil fuels that bothers me. We already have a shit load of demand for hydrogen from industrial uses, and it would take 3x the world’s total renewable capacity in 2019, dedicated solely to hydrogen production, to meet this with green hydrogen. If we start adding transportation into that demand we’ll never make it, and it will be far less efficient than other energy sources (eg batteries).

          So yeah, we should have green hydrogen production, but we shouldn’t listen to those same people when they say they think it should also be used for transportation. That’s just trying to increase the size of the market to increase profits.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Hydrogen works well with a renewable grids because you can take advantage of the times there is excess energy production so that power doesn’t just go to waste.

            We do need to be careful because hydrogen is often sold as a pipe dream by gas companies to convince us to use gas (e.g. “this new gas turbine power plant can be converted to hydrogen”, even though that’d be a workload less efficient than fuel cells).

            As for its use in transport, it looks like battery electric vehicles have won that battle for personal vehicles. Both have their advantages but in practice there are few enough fuel stations for hydrogen and enough chargers that that’s not going to flip.

            However, batteries are entirely unsuitable to long distance, high load transport like trucks. Ideally they’d be replaced by rail, but that’s not happening anytime soon in many places so hydrogen likely will be the solution there.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      Here’s an example of what can be done with 5 hours of storage. 5 hours is a 25% participation rate of V2G where the participants offer a third of their battery capacity.

      https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/

      If going with the (false) assumption that nuclear can hit 100% grid penetration, it would take decades to offset the carbon released by causing a single year of delay.

      The lowest carbon “let’s pretend storage is impossible and go with 100% nuclear” would still start with exclusively funding VRE.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -21 year ago

        Lol at trying to pass that link off as a valid, unbiased source.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          lol at a rando discrediting an article that gives supporting data. Did you even read it? Write your own well supported opinion and submit it here. We’ll wait.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Oh is that a new rule? You can’t point out garbage, bias sources unless you’ve written a dissertation on it? Fucking rube.

              • prole
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                Great comeback. Very cute.

                But why don’t you go ahead and go get a juice box and let the adults speak.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  TIL an “adult” is someone who denigrates a link without even reading it or having any substantive data points to support their points. Sounds like you have plenty of juice boxes to give out.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      consumers may also help reduce system costs by adapting their electricity consumption to the availability of renewable energy

      From the linked paper. They mention some other options for storage like batteries (plenty of environmental issues there though) but based on the quoted text I have a hard time taking this seriously if they actually expect people to change their behavior.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Plug in car. Press the “I would like to only pay $100/yr to fuel this please” button.

        Later when you leave for work press the “I would like the house to be cool when I get home and also want to pay half as much for AC” button.

        Buy the 1.5m wide water heater that stores 10kWh of hot water and lasts a week between heatings rather than the 70cm one that lasts a day.

        Such an unconscionable burden.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        I think innovation at the consumption end is going to help a lot. On Technology Connections I saw an electric induction stove that could be powered from a regular socket. It had a battery that would trickle charge throughout the day and then use the batteries to power the induction cooktops, as well as a couple of plugs. If widely deployed and in other appliances, with a little smarts that could provide power leveling at the home level.

        Another solution would be adding some intelligence to water heaters. Have a temperature control valve on the output where you set the temperature, and program the water heater get to 160-180°F when electricity is cheap. This would be a thermal battery that would easily level out demand for electricity for heating water.

        Or you could do thermal storage by heating a house very warm/cold prior to a large cold snap/heat wave, and letting it coast down/up to a temperature instead of heating/cooling a lot during the cold/hot weather. He’s got a video on this technique here

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          Another solution would be adding some intelligence to water heaters. Have a temperature control valve on the output where you set the temperature, and program the water heater get to 160-180°F when electricity is cheap. This would be a thermal battery that would easily level out demand for electricity for heating water.

          This has been done for close to a century in wind or run of river hydro heavy countries (as well as some coal ones).

          The water heater has a buffer tank and is attached to a meter that only runs when a signal is sent across the power line. This stores about 20kWh for a 300L tank.

          Modern insulation would allow going up to a few m^3 for a couple weeks’ worth.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Combine that with some radiant floor heating on a nice thick concrete slab and you could use the battery for home heating. (Though it would need a lot of water.)

      • Zorque
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        “Not enough power from renewables? Just turn off your fridge for a few days and you’ll be fine!”

        Honestly that sentiment has strong “blame the consumer” vibes that seems to pervade climate arguments.

        Sure, people can reduce consumption, but at best its a stopgap, not a solution.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          There’s stuff like heaters and to a degree things like washing machines that can shape the time they’re active to whenever there’s a lull.

          Consider Britain: Each time the BBC runs a popular show you get an energy usage spike once it’s over because people are getting up and make themselves a cuppa. Doesn’t really make sense to run the heater in the tank for your shower at the same time, or charge your car, that can wait a bit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      We have to start looking at personal renewables more? Each home could have their own small windmill or solar panel. Let’s point in that direction.

      • Zorque
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        What makes you think personal renewable are going to be more efficient than large scale renewables? The sun doesn’t magically shine in the middle of the night on personal homes, the wind doesn’t magically blow only in residential areas…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Nuclear is a terrible fit for peaker plants, that’s not how it works. If it isn’t selling energy at as close to 100% of the time as is feasible it’s losing money.

    • roguetrick
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nuclear is not, and cannot be, a gap coverage solution. Due to xenon/iodine poisoning and decay heat management you need to keep a reactor critical as long as possible to be economical. That’s independent of the problem of keeping the water hot that fossil fuel generators share. You can’t just turn a reactor on and off.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        It can provide a baseload though where solar can provide extra power during the heat for places where the summer and days are the power intensive part, rather than winter and nights. You still need a short-term stop gap as the sun sets but it’s still hot out, but even if that was just powered by NG it would be a huge step forward. Adding greener energy storage options to store extra power nuclear or wind could generate overnight would be better.

        Btw, could a small percent of nuclear reactors be turned on/off seasonally, potentially transporting fuel between the north in the winter and the south in the summer?

        • roguetrick
          link
          fedilink
          9
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, but if you spend the money making a reactor, you really should just use it. Uranium is pretty cheap, it’s the reactor that’s expensive.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Fair. If a grid was just powered by batteries, solar, wind, and existing nuclear plants, which would be the most effective to turn off when demand is too low?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Columbia station load follows within a certain range set by nearby hydro. It can be done. The economics aren’t even that bad, as fuel is one of the cheaper inputs to the reactor.

      • BombOmOm
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Keep the reactors running to avoid that issue. As long as they are providing enough power when the renewables aren’t, we successfully cut out natural gas from the power grid.

    • Dharma Curious
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      While I agree completely, it is troublesome that you, BombOmOm, are saying this… :/ username checks no fly list out.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      The best solution is having EVs plugged into the grid at night. VTG is the easy solution to peaker needs.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Then you are getting into the issue of the power company eating up your charge cycles on your EV battery. Who pays for the fact that my battery now has half the design lifetime due to constant cycling because it’s feeding the grid?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          These are easily solved details. For example, by providing power on the grid you are in essence a power company. Perhaps you get reimbursed based upon what you provide. You know net metering is already a thing, right?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I’m just saying that we might need to get away from the idea that a car battery is solely an owner expense. They’d have to be subsidized or there would be huge equity issues. And yes “I do know about net metering,right.”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Yes you are correct in stating that if you used your car battery for grid usage you would need to get reimbursed for that. And I gave you an easy solution. This could actually be a profit center for EV owners and if you have your car plugged into the grid at peak times, you would get reimbursed more per kWh (ie TOU) with the net metering. Win/win for everybody except utilities and fossil fuel providers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      The renewables-only crowd is just ignorant about this simple fact.

      The future of energy will be dominated by solar and nuclear power. With hydro, geothermal and wind playing supporting roles, depending on geography.

      The only question is, how much fossil fuels do we burn until then?

      Those who oppose nuclear are really just in favour of burning fossil fuels in the interim. But the inevitable switch to nuclear will come as fossil fuels are depleted.

      Nature has given us the atom as the most dense and durable way to store energy. That will never change.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Typical energy density of ore in a new uranium mine burned in an LWR is about the same of coal.

        All of the economic/not too damaging stuff together would power the world for about 3 years.