Grid power discussion (solar, wind, nuclear, etc.)

[UniversalCommons]

Hydroelectric is the most cost effective hands down. Also pumped hydroelectric is a more efficient form of energy storage than batteries. Distributed hydroelectric and small scale hydroelectric are the most used form of renewable energy after biomass.

[Earth Orbit]

This coming week, my weather app says that it's going to be snowing almost every day and overcast on the days that it's not snowing. So, let's say I had solar panels. Do you honestly expect me to go out and buy enough batteries to store a week's worth of power? And to climb up onto my roof and shovel the snow off of the panels every day? I can't afford to buy that many batteries and I'm not about to risk falling off my roof to clean off solar panels.

Let's say my city was powered by solar panels. There are approximately 200,000 people here. So, the city would have to store a weeks worth of power for all 200,000 people, and their businesses, and government facilities, and other structures as necessary. My city can't afford to buy those batteries or to pay people to clean off the solar panels-- they can't even afford to build a shelter for the homeless.

Buying batteries to store power works for those who can afford it. But it's a solution that only works for middle and upper class folk. There needs to be a more reliable method of producing power, and in my opinion nuclear power is the way to go.

You know who can afford it? The government. Use giant lake-shaped batteries, and you're sorted. You even get free blackstart capability into the bargain.

Batteries aren't even practical on a large scale. You know that wind farm in Australia with those Tesla batteries greenies like to point to? If the wind turbines they're linked to aren't operating, those batteries "can store enough energy to power around 30,000 homes for more than an hour." An hour, for just 30,000 homes! And the array cost 90 million USD! Wind turbines cease operation quite frequently, if the winds are too low or even too high, meaning that the batteries eventually run dry and other, more traditional plants have to be brought up to cover the demand.

The US has 128.58 million households. Let's say you've somehow managed to do the impossible and convert the country over to an all-renewable grid with generating capacity equal to that of the old system. In order to deal with the inescapable issue of intermittency, you decide that the entire country needs battery backups for a full 24 hours. This isn't realistic, as I live in the Midwest and have seen wind plants down for days at a time, but it's a nice round number.

So, first we multiply 90 million by 24 hours to get the cost of powering 30,000 homes per hour. This works out to $2,160,000,000.

Now, we multiply this by 4,286 (128.58 million/30,000) to get the final cost of enough battery backups to power every household in the US for a day.

This works out to an astounding 9.25776e+12 dollars ($9,257,760,000,000), or nine trillion, two hundred fifty-seven billion, seven hundred sixty million dollars. That's not totally infeasible, on paper - the annual federal budget is more than that, although not by much. But this is before factoring in varying land costs, maintenance over time, and other long-term costs. And at the end of the day, it's only enough to provide every US home with a paltry 24 hours of backup. We aren't even including the cost of any other structures, such as strip malls, office high-rises, hospitals (these especially, people on life support don't do so hot when the power goes out), factories... the list goes on. It also doesn't account for population growth (new households) or increases in energy consumption (if everyone gets an electric car or something, that'll cause a spike.)

And saying "oh, a battery revolution is coming!" isn't a valid argument. That's been said for years now, and we're still using lithium batteries.

What's the status on fusion power? I've heard it was being researched by a couple universities in US and France, but it's been fairly quiet.

We're working on it, but it's still largely a pipe dream, which is why I point to fission as our first point of investment. The issue with fusion is that it's really hard to create a stable, net-gain pocket of fusing fuel. We can create fusion reactions quite easily - in fact, you can do it in your garage with the right tools and a bit of ingenuity - but the problem comes in when you try to scale it up and have it produce significantly more power out then you put in.

The ideal fusion reactor would likely require a huge surge of power to jumpstart the reaction (superheating hydrogen fuel to fusing levels is expensive) and only require a much smaller baseline of power and fuel input over time to maintain the reaction and produce power. Unfortunately we haven't even reached this self-sustaining stage yet, let alone a point where we can extract megawatts of energy from the reaction.

The bright side to the difficulty of fusion is that it makes theoretical fusion reactors incredibly safe - if you punched a hole in the side, the reaction would be blown out like a candle, with no explosion or release of radioactive materials.

[Salandriagado]

You know who can afford it? The government. Use giant lake-shaped batteries, and you're sorted. You even get free blackstart capability into the bargain.

Batteries aren't even practical on a large scale. You know that wind farm in Australia with those Tesla batteries greenies like to point to? If the wind turbines they're linked to aren't operating, those batteries "can store enough energy to power around 30,000 homes for more than an hour." An hour, for just 30,000 homes! And the array cost 90 million USD! Wind turbines cease operation quite frequently, if the winds are too low or even too high, meaning that the batteries eventually run dry and other, more traditional plants have to be brought up to cover the demand.

The US has 128.58 million households. Let's say you've somehow managed to do the impossible and convert the country over to an all-renewable grid with generating capacity equal to that of the old system. In order to deal with the inescapable issue of intermittency, you decide that the entire country needs battery backups for a full 24 hours. This isn't realistic, as I live in the Midwest and have seen wind plants down for days at a time, but it's a nice round number.

So, first we multiply 90 million by 24 hours to get the cost of powering 30,000 homes per hour. This works out to $2,160,000,000.

Now, we multiply this by 4,286 (128.58 million/30,000) to get the final cost of enough battery backups to power every household in the US for a day.

This works out to an astounding 9.25776e+12 dollars ($9,257,760,000,000), or nine trillion, two hundred fifty-seven billion, seven hundred sixty million dollars. That's not totally infeasible, on paper - the annual federal budget is more than that, although not by much. But this is before factoring in varying land costs, maintenance over time, and other long-term costs. And at the end of the day, it's only enough to provide every US home with a paltry 24 hours of backup. We aren't even including the cost of any other structures, such as strip malls, office high-rises, hospitals (these especially, people on life support don't do so hot when the power goes out), factories... the list goes on. It also doesn't account for population growth (new households) or increases in energy consumption (if everyone gets an electric car or something, that'll cause a spike.)

And saying "oh, a battery revolution is coming!" isn't a valid argument. That's been said for years now, and we're still using lithium batteries.

You seem to have failed at reading. Try again.

[Earth Orbit]

Batteries aren't even practical on a large scale. You know that wind farm in Australia with those Tesla batteries greenies like to point to? If the wind turbines they're linked to aren't operating, those batteries "can store enough energy to power around 30,000 homes for more than an hour." An hour, for just 30,000 homes! And the array cost 90 million USD! Wind turbines cease operation quite frequently, if the winds are too low or even too high, meaning that the batteries eventually run dry and other, more traditional plants have to be brought up to cover the demand.

The US has 128.58 million households. Let's say you've somehow managed to do the impossible and convert the country over to an all-renewable grid with generating capacity equal to that of the old system. In order to deal with the inescapable issue of intermittency, you decide that the entire country needs battery backups for a full 24 hours. This isn't realistic, as I live in the Midwest and have seen wind plants down for days at a time, but it's a nice round number.

So, first we multiply 90 million by 24 hours to get the cost of powering 30,000 homes per hour. This works out to $2,160,000,000.

Now, we multiply this by 4,286 (128.58 million/30,000) to get the final cost of enough battery backups to power every household in the US for a day.

This works out to an astounding 9.25776e+12 dollars ($9,257,760,000,000), or nine trillion, two hundred fifty-seven billion, seven hundred sixty million dollars. That's not totally infeasible, on paper - the annual federal budget is more than that, although not by much. But this is before factoring in varying land costs, maintenance over time, and other long-term costs. And at the end of the day, it's only enough to provide every US home with a paltry 24 hours of backup. We aren't even including the cost of any other structures, such as strip malls, office high-rises, hospitals (these especially, people on life support don't do so hot when the power goes out), factories... the list goes on. It also doesn't account for population growth (new households) or increases in energy consumption (if everyone gets an electric car or something, that'll cause a spike.)

And saying "oh, a battery revolution is coming!" isn't a valid argument. That's been said for years now, and we're still using lithium batteries.

You seem to have failed at reading. Try again.

First off, "giant lake-shaped batteries" is a pretty bad way to describe pumped hydroelectric. I don't know what else you could be talking about though.

Pumped hydroelectric power is bullshit, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can see that. It's vastly less efficient than solid-state heavy metal batteries, with an efficiency of only 80% (compared to almost 100% for Li-ion) thanks to the thermodynamics of pumping water uphill, and my research shows that most installations only store half a days worth of generating capacity.

It's also vulnerable to, I don't know, the WEATHER! Your lake battery won't do shit if it's frozen solid in the winter, a common occurrence in much of the US. Or what if there's a summer drought and the water source dries up? Not to mention that the viability of pumped hydroelectric is highly dependent on the presence of ideal geographic conditions and often requires significant defacement of the surrounding environment.

Also, Google says batteries now have a lower cost per MWh than pumped hydroelectric. ($187/MWh compared to $200-260/MWh, without subsidies.) So my 9 trillion dollar battery backups would actually cost less than somehow using pumped hydroelectric to store the same amount of power consistently.

[Salandriagado]

You seem to have failed at reading. Try again.

First off, "giant lake-shaped batteries" is a pretty bad way to describe pumped hydroelectric. I don't know what else you could be talking about though.

Pumped hydroelectric power is bullshit, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can see that. It's vastly less efficient than solid-state heavy metal batteries, with an efficiency of only 80% (compared to almost 100% for Li-ion) thanks to the thermodynamics of pumping water uphill, and my research shows that most installations only store half a days worth of generating capacity.

This doesn't matter: it's utterly trivial to build lots of them, and to have mountains of surplus energy production when you're storing it.

It's also vulnerable to, I don't know, the WEATHER! Your lake battery won't do shit if it's frozen solid in the winter, a common occurrence in much of the US.

There are zero sizable bodies of water in the US that freeze entirely during the winter.

Or what if there's a summer drought and the water source dries up?

It's a closed loop.

Not to mention that the viability of pumped hydroelectric is highly dependent on the presence of ideal geographic conditions and often requires significant defacement of the surrounding environment.

Not really: Dinorweg is still lovely, and you can always replace the mountain with a mineshaft.

Also, Google says batteries now have a lower cost per MWh than pumped hydroelectric. ($187/MWh compared to $200-260/MWh, without subsidies.) So my 9 trillion dollar battery backups would actually cost less than somehow using pumped hydroelectric to store the same amount of power consistently.

Sure, if you entirely ignore scaling costs.

[The New California Republic]

Hydroelectric is the most cost effective hands down. Also pumped hydroelectric is a more efficient form of energy storage than batteries. Distributed hydroelectric and small scale hydroelectric are the most used form of renewable energy after biomass.

The only problem is that quite a lot of places are not suitable for hydroelectric.

Actually, there is also the issue of entire villages or towns having to be abandoned because they lie in the area that will form the new reservoir.

[Azadliq]

Hydroelectric is the most cost effective hands down. Also pumped hydroelectric is a more efficient form of energy storage than batteries. Distributed hydroelectric and small scale hydroelectric are the most used form of renewable energy after biomass.

The only problem is that quite a lot of places are not suitable for hydroelectric.

Actually, there is also the issue of entire villages or towns having to be abandoned because they lie in the area that will form the new reservoir.

I mean, you can always rebuild a village or town somewhere else. To me that's a nonissue. But you are right in that a lot of places just don't have enough water, or large enough rivers, to make hydroelectric power an effective solution. You also have to contend with rivers drying up or only substantially flowing seasonally.

[UniversalCommons]

There cannot be one energy source for everything. It is a fallacy. Just as we cannot always use batteries for storage. Mapping which form of energy is the best one to use in a given area needs to done. Where is it best to place hydro, geothermal, solar, or wind.

[Albrenia]

There cannot be one energy source for everything. It is a fallacy. Just as we cannot always use batteries for storage. Mapping which form of energy is the best one to use in a given area needs to done. Where is it best to place hydro, geothermal, solar, or wind.

But that would make sense.

[UniversalCommons]

It is terrible to be accused of being rational. We must be self contradictory. In addition to batteries, there is pumped hydro, flywheel energy storage, and compressed air storage. Batteries are only one answer.

[Novus America]

There cannot be one energy source for everything. It is a fallacy. Just as we cannot always use batteries for storage. Mapping which form of energy is the best one to use in a given area needs to done. Where is it best to place hydro, geothermal, solar, or wind.

Although I agree, why did you exclude nuclear? (Although it works most places).
Also each area might not be best with only one.

[UniversalCommons]

I exclude nuclear because it does not match up with a distributed energy grid where people put power back into the grid. Smart grids are built around distributed energy systems. People cannot own their own nuclear power plants. They can build their own wind towers, put in solar panels, install biogas, even put in small hydroelectric turbines. In effect, a distributed system is entrepreneurial in scope, people can choose to build energy systems where they will make money doing this.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... renewables

Even sources like natural gas are flexible in this sense. You can have your own natural gas turbine. Because you can own your own energy sources there is more flexibility and independence.

Nuclear also does not tie in with some of the concepts in the smart grid like energy efficiency, green buildings, and similar things. It is very much like having huge refineries that are centrally controlled. Nuclear power does not lead to energy independence. It always creates big regulatory agencies with centralized control systems through very large companies. This centralized entity is always tied in with very large government agencies as well. Nuclear creates big centralized bureaucracies.

[Immoren]

People should be allowed to own their own miniture nuclear plats.
Well realistically communities.

[Novus America]

I exclude nuclear because it does not match up with a distributed energy grid where people put power back into the grid. Smart grids are built around distributed energy systems. People cannot own their own nuclear power plants. They can build their own wind towers, put in solar panels, install biogas, even put in small hydroelectric turbines. In effect, a distributed system is entrepreneurial in scope, people can choose to build energy systems where they will make money doing this.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... renewables

Even sources like natural gas are flexible in this sense. You can have your own natural gas turbine. Because you can own your own energy sources there is more flexibility and independence.

Nuclear also does not tie in with some of the concepts in the smart grid like energy efficiency, green buildings, and similar things. It is very much like having huge refineries that are centrally controlled. Nuclear power does not lead to energy independence. It always creates big regulatory agencies with centralized control systems through very large companies. This centralized entity is always tied in with very large government agencies as well. Nuclear creates big centralized bureaucracies.

You cannot have your own gas turbine unless you have a source of gas.
And cannot if you live in a small apartment in a big city. Distributed power on works in areas wit low enough population density. NYC can never have it.

Besides having your own power source you can sell back to the grid does not preclude having a baseline source. A smarty grid can and likely would need a source of stable power for at least some of the base-load.

And nuclear is the MOST efficient in terms of land and materials use per power generated.
Which is important to reduce the impact of mining and especially important in areas with a shortage of space.

[Slavakino]

I'm nuclear!!!! I'm wild

[Senkaku]

I exclude nuclear because it does not match up with a distributed energy grid where people put power back into the grid. Smart grids are built around distributed energy systems.

So we don't do a distributed grid. That doesn't preclude the possibility of building a smart grid with a ton of computerization and sensors (though anyone who's too starry-eyed about those sort of developments evidently has not been reading on the latest developments in cyberwarfare, methinks).

Novus dealt with your ridiculous assertions regarding distributed power's upsides already, so I'll move on.

Nuclear also does not tie in with some of the concepts in the smart grid like energy efficiency, green buildings, and similar things.

How on earth is nuclear incompatible with energy efficiency or green buildings? What a ridiculous claim. Why can't we still build environmentally friendly buildings and use energy-efficient technology just because we're using nuclear power? And what "similar things" do you mean?

It is very much like having huge refineries that are centrally controlled.

Okay... cool?

Nuclear power does not lead to energy independence.

I'm starting to think you're just googling "grid power buzzwords" and saying "nuclear is not compatible with [fill in the blank]." How is it not compatible with energy independence? It's clearly worked for the French and been working for some time, and the same went for Japan before they shut their reactors down.

It always creates big regulatory agencies with centralized control systems through very large companies. This centralized entity is always tied in with very large government agencies as well. Nuclear creates big centralized bureaucracies.

And? Who cares? I'm fine with a big centralized bureaucracy if that's what's needed to deliver cheap, clean, safe, and abundant power to America and to the world.

[American Pere Housh]

Though a fossil fuel, natural gas is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels.

[Grenartia]

First off, "giant lake-shaped batteries" is a pretty bad way to describe pumped hydroelectric. I don't know what else you could be talking about though.

Pumped hydroelectric power is bullshit, and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can see that. It's vastly less efficient than solid-state heavy metal batteries, with an efficiency of only 80% (compared to almost 100% for Li-ion) thanks to the thermodynamics of pumping water uphill, and my research shows that most installations only store half a days worth of generating capacity.

This doesn't matter: it's utterly trivial to build lots of them

Except in places where hydro just doesn't fucking work. Like, you know, utterly flat areas. Good luck with effective hydro in "literally flatter than a pancake" Kansas (barely 1km difference between its highest point and its lowest point, which are on opposite sides of the state). None of the reservoirs in Kansas seem to be more than 20m deep, and none of their associated dams were built with the purpose of power generation. Instead, they all universally seem to have been built for water supply and flood control. One would think that power generation (inb4 "I'm talking about storage, not generation", it makes no difference here) would have been cited as one of the purposes of these dams if it were viable in Kansas. Yet, we do not see that. Unless you're proposing to literally just put turbines at the base of every water tower in the nation, which is pants-on-head.

, and to have mountains of surplus energy production when you're storing it.

It's also vulnerable to, I don't know, the WEATHER! Your lake battery won't do shit if it's frozen solid in the winter, a common occurrence in much of the US.

There are zero sizable bodies of water in the US that freeze entirely during the winter.

Yet, the wider point still stands. In an ever-changing climate, it is utterly foolish to rely on power generation and storage that is fundamentally dependent on the climate. Particularly when the method in question is fundamentally limited by geography as well.

Or what if there's a summer drought and the water source dries up?

It's a closed loop.

Not to mention that the viability of pumped hydroelectric is highly dependent on the presence of ideal geographic conditions and often requires significant defacement of the surrounding environment.

Not really: Dinorweg is still lovely, and you can always replace the mountain with a mineshaft.

Except in places where there are no mountains or mineshafts with suitably non-porous rock.

Also, Google says batteries now have a lower cost per MWh than pumped hydroelectric. ($187/MWh compared to $200-260/MWh, without subsidies.) So my 9 trillion dollar battery backups would actually cost less than somehow using pumped hydroelectric to store the same amount of power consistently.

Sure, if you entirely ignore scaling costs.

That's pretty much the only thing pumped hydro has going for it, tbh.

[Imperial Joseon]

Surprised to find people mostly preferring nuclear power. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0.

[Grenartia]

There cannot be one energy source for everything.

If you're talking grid scale, you're wrong. Nuclear exists, and it really only gets less economical for extremely small scale applications.

[Grenartia]

Surprised to find people mostly preferring nuclear power. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0.

How. How can you be so fractally wrong with that single statement?

[Imperial Joseon]

Though a fossil fuel, natural gas is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels.

Cleanest of the fossil fuels.

[The New California Republic]

Surprised to find people mostly preferring nuclear power. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0.

Look into the unique circumstances of said incidents before you use that as a broad brush to unjustifiably taint the entire industry.

[Imperial Joseon]

Surprised to find people mostly preferring nuclear power. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0.

Look into the unique circumstances of said incidents before you use that as a broad brush to unjustifiably taint the entire industry.

Well, I oppose it because of the risks. That's what I'm saying. My opinion.

[The New California Republic]

Look into the unique circumstances of said incidents before you use that as a broad brush to unjustifiably taint the entire industry.

Well, I oppose it because of the risks. That's what I'm saying. My opinion.

Again I repeat what I said.