Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[nwdiver]

Yes, destabilization is a much more real threat. Autonomous systems are nice, but they are very expensive. Wk057's system will never pay for itself and it can't be scaled to replace all the baseload power.

'Destabilization' has been a very mobile goal post... reality keeps pushing past boundaries models kept predicting would 'destabilize' the grid. WK057s system may not pay for itself but new purpose build high voltage systems certainly will. Utilities will be caught between a rock and a hard place... charge high enough fees to maintain an obsolete nuclear fleet and face mass grid defections or trim the fat and abandon nuclear.

This is the future. Grid is optional.

 

[S'toon]

Why? Existing designs are perfectly adequate for load-following. The nuclear waste problem is being solved by fast neutron reactors.

Right now Russia is building lead-cooled (yes, molten lead) BREST reactor that will have a completely closed fuel cycle, it'll need just U-238 and will have neutron economy good enough to burn pre-existing waste. Again, it's not a theoretical design but something that is being built right now.

China is experimenting with accelerator-driven reactors that are useless for power generation, but are quite good at burning up the waste.

You still haven't solved the cost problem. The cheapest nuclear reactor costs over $10 billion now. Plus the over a decade it takes to build one. Plus the site planning, environmental approval, review process, etc. So I stand by my previous statement that if you wanted to build one from scratch right now, it'd take 25-30 years. The Hinkley C power plant has been under construction for 17 years now.

 

[AntronX]

You still haven't solved the cost problem. The cheapest nuclear reactor costs over $10 billion now. Plus the over a decade it takes to build one.

South Korea is building them for $3.57 billion per GW. Barakah nuclear plant is 5.6GW for $20B, on schedule and is taking 5 years to build for first reactor, and +1 year for each of remaining 3 reactors. That plant will provide 25% of UAE electricity and will replace gas powered generation, savings of 22M tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to removing 4.84 million cars.

The Hinkley C power plant has been under construction for 17 years now.

Everyone agrees Hinkley is a mess, but it does not represent nuclear power cost worldwide.

 

[nwdiver]

Barakah nuclear plant is 5.6GW for $20B

That IS a good deal... amazing how cheap you can build stuff when you don't pay your labour force...

South Korea is building them for $3.57 billion per GW.

Using substandard parts also helps keep your costs down...

 

[Cyberax]

You still haven't solved the cost problem. The cheapest nuclear reactor costs over $10 billion now. Plus the over a decade it takes to build one. Plus the site planning, environmental approval, review process, etc. So I stand by my previous statement that if you wanted to build one from scratch right now, it'd take 25-30 years. The Hinkley C power plant has been under construction for 17 years now.

Actually, the cheapest nuclear reactor is about $3 billion right now and can be built within 6 years. Just not in the US.

Nuclear power is becoming uneconomic, but not because of the solar or wind power but because of the dirt-cheap natural gas. It's easy to just build wind and solar plants and use natural gas turbine powerplants to provide backup when (not if) there's not enough renewable power being generated.

Of course this doesn't take into account the price of CO2 emissions. Were they priced accordingly, the natural gas plants would have been uneconomical.

 

[AntronX]

That IS a good deal... amazing how cheap you can build stuff when you don't pay your labour force...

There is nothing in that link about labor at the nuclear plant...

Using substandard parts also helps keep your costs down...

Again, nothing about which parts were substandard, except some cables that were not up to spec. Pretty sad of you if that's the best you can do.

 

[Cyberax]

'Destabilization' has been a very mobile goal post... reality keeps pushing past boundaries models kept predicting would 'destabilize' the grid. WK057s system may not pay for itself but new purpose build high voltage systems certainly will.

Which high voltage systems? I assume you speak of HVDC systems that don't need to be synchronized? So far I don't know even about one project to replace a region-scale grid with a HVDC backbone.

There's a reason for this - HVDC is _expensive_.

This is the future. Grid is optional.

LOL. Powerwall can provide about 3-4 hours of energy use for a typical home and only if you don't need hot water heater, AC or heating. I really can see tons of people cutting off their grid connection and then freezing at night or during cloudy days.

If you look at realistic grid-autonomous systems then you'll notice that all of them have fossil-fuel generator backup (my favorite one: KIREIP | King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project ).

But wait! Let's look at plans for nation-scale renewable transition in Germany: http://publica.fraunhofer.de/eprints/urn_nbn_de_0011-n-3198705.pdf . Even with (really unsubstantiated) assumptions that the need for electricity won't grow, they STILL have to use 6% of classical generation from _coal_ power plants and have 50% backup capacity from standby natural gas-fired generators.

 

[nwdiver]

There is nothing in that link about labor at the nuclear plant...

Again, nothing about which parts were substandard, except some cables that were not up to spec. Pretty sad of you if that's the best you can do.

You're right... I'm sure that the vast majority of construction labour in Dubai is working in virtual slavery... except the ~18k people building the nuclear plant... makes sense. The Korean nuclear scandal involved a lot more than a few cables... also a bit of a litmus test... if you're willing to cut corners in one area odds are you're cutting corners in others as well. Well it did work I suppose... they can build an expensive nuclear plant instead of an absurdly expensive nuclear plant like the rest of the west.

Which high voltage systems? I assume you speak of HVDC systems that don't need to be synchronized? So far I don't know even about one project to replace a region-scale grid with a HVDC backbone.

No... 'High Voltage' as in ~350v instead of the ~48v that wk used. That was the primary reason his system isn't cost effective. This time next year you should be able to install a system as dynamic as his for ~1/3 the cost. I just spec'd out a ~23kW system for a friend... the total materials cost will be ~$20k vs >$100k for wks ~44kW system. For another ~$10k I'd be able to add ~20kWh of storage once the next generation inverters are released next year.

Most homes only require ~15-20 kWh during the night. Yeah... you'll need the grid in the winter... my point is you can't operate a nuclear plant if you only have a market for 30% of the year.

50% backup capacity from standby natural gas-fired generators.

Yup... Natural Gas is a perfect fit while renewables keep scaling... good luck trying to use nuclear power for 'backup' without going broke.

 

[Cyberax]

No... 'High Voltage' as in ~350v instead of the ~48v that wk used. That was the primary reason his system isn't cost effective. This time next year you should be able to install a system as dynamic as his for ~1/3 the cost. I just spec'd out a ~23kW system for a friend... the total materials cost will be ~$20k vs >$100k for wks ~44kW system. For another ~$10k I'd be able to add ~20kWh of storage once the next generation inverters are released next year.

So you've dodged the question of the grid instability, OK.

The primary problem with the storage systems is the battery price. And no, you won't get 20kWh storage for $10k. It's only possible if you can get used batteries with a huge discount. However, even if you DO get 20kWh of storage then it'll still cause you many freezing nights in Midwest of the US or alternatively a lot of very humid nights in South.

 

[nwdiver]

So you've dodged the question of the grid instability, OK.

The primary problem with the storage systems is the battery price. And no, you won't get 20kWh storage for $10k. It's only possible if you can get used batteries with a huge discount. However, even if you DO get 20kWh of storage then it'll still cause you many freezing nights in Midwest of the US or alternatively a lot of very humid nights in South.

'Destabilization' has been a very mobile goal post... reality keeps pushing past boundaries models kept predicting would 'destabilize' the grid.

The 7kWh power wall is $3k... just wait 'till the Gigafactoy is online.

“The exit rate of cells from Gigafactory will be faster than bullets from a machine gun.” -Elon Musk

Battery costs are already <$150/kWh... set to go much lower...

 

[AntronX]

You're right... I'm sure that the vast majority of construction labour in Dubai is working in virtual slavery... except the ~18k people building the nuclear plant... makes sense.

Yea, start making stuff up when you got no argument... Seems like you will never be happy with nuke power even if it costs 1 cent per kWh as in the case of UAE plant.

No... 'High Voltage' as in ~350v instead of the ~48v that wk used. That was the primary reason his system isn't cost effective.

I thought the main reason is 200kWh of lithium battery at ~$40k used.

I just spec'd out a ~23kW system for a friend... the total materials cost will be ~$20k vs >$100k for wks ~44kW system. For another ~$10k I'd be able to add ~20kWh of storage once the next generation inverters are released next year.

Cool, so for slave labor (which you seem to object to in case of nukes, but yourself work for free installing solar), no interest financing, and $30k for 23kW PV + 20kWh battery your friend gets to pay 11.2 cents / kWh for 10 years for his system until it's paid off. By that time battery will be dead but at least solar panels will be paid off and good for another 15 years. And not to forget opportunity cost of stranding $30k in the project, money that could be doubled or tripled if invested during that time.

Most homes only require ~15-20 kWh during the night. Yeah... you'll need the grid in the winter... my point is you can't operate a nuclear plant if you only have a market for 30% of the year.

There is market for nukes 100% of the year. Stop making up numbers.

Yup... Natural Gas is a perfect fit while renewables keep scaling... good luck trying to use nuclear power for 'backup' without going broke.

Have fun being an enviro hypocrite trading nukes for solar+wind and still emitting same or worse amount of carbon with ~60% nat gas backup. But hey, nukes are scarey, gas is "natural", can't be that bad right?

 

[nwdiver]

Cool, so for slave labor (which you seem to object to in case of nukes, but yourself work for free installing solar), no interest financing, and $30k for 23kW PV + 20kWh battery your friend gets to pay 11.2 cents / kWh for 10 years for his system until it's paid off. By that time battery will be dead but at least solar panels will be paid off and good for another 15 years. And not to forget opportunity cost of stranding $30k in the project, money that could be doubled or tripled if invested during that time.

If I could DIY a nuclear reactor I'd do that too

The battery in my S is 4 years old with negligible degradation after 90k miles... I'm thinking they're going to be good for a lot more than 10 years...

And... the batteries were just a small reason wks project has no ROI... Paying $0.50/w for an inverter + $0.30/w for charge controllers vs $0.30 for 'grit-tie' doesn't help (That $0.30/w also includes a charge controller) then there's the wiring. If you want to push 44kW through 48v you need ~50x as much wire vs ~350v.

It's easy to forget that solar just hit grid parity a few years ago. Costs are still falling rapidly. Storage is languishing largely since there's no benefit to storage. Necessity is the mother of innovation. Once there's an incentive to use storage it will be used...

There is market for nukes 100% of the year. Stop making up numbers.

Most homes in the US can generate enough energy to be self sustaining for ~70% of the year with a modest (~8kW) PV system and ~15kWh of batteries. That's based on the output and consumption of the 5 homes I've taken to net zero. One of which is located near Seattle, Wa.

The point there is utilities can't hold rate payers hostage... defection will be an option for most people.

 

[AntronX]

The battery in my S is 4 years old with negligible degradation after 90k miles... I'm thinking they're going to be good for a lot more than 10 years...

90K miles = 27,000 kWh at 300Wh/mi. Since model S pack is 81kWh (I assume you have *85 model) then that's only 333 equivalent full cycles in 4 years. But in daily 70% DOD solar storage cycling to make economical use of battery capacity, 4 years will equal 1022 equivalent full cycles or 3 times more wear for the storage battery vs. one in your car. Besides, you can't accurately gauge battery degradation based on driving range. Too many variables. Is there LeafSpy equivalent for Model S ?

And... the batteries were just a small reason wks project has no ROI... Paying $0.50/w for an inverter + $0.30/w for charge controllers vs $0.30 for 'grit-tie' doesn't help...

How is ~$0.80/W of battery capacity "just a small reason"? Do the math, $36K/44kW... He has 36 Tesla modules, correct? They are going for about $1k each right now, or ~$200/kWh. That's almost $40k in pure battery without enclosures and hardware just to enable one medium sized house to be ~95% off-grid. Using two Tesla power packs, it would cost $89k or ~40 years worth of my electricity bills. Storage needs to get down to <$100/kWh installed to make any sense.

Most homes in the US can generate enough energy to be self sustaining for ~70% of the year with a modest (~8kW) PV system and ~15kWh of batteries. That's based on the output and consumption of the 5 homes I've taken to net zero. One of which is located near Seattle, Wa.

Off-grid or still net metered?

The point there is utilities can't hold rate payers hostage... defection will be an option for most people.

Yea, maybe for the 1%-ers...

 

[nwdiver]

Off-grid or still net metered?

Yea, maybe for the 1%-ers...

Grid-independent... using the grid as a backup.

One of the reasons Tesla is merging with Solar City is to take advantage of Tesla batteries. This will allow Solar City to fight some of the shenanigans utilities like APS are attempting to protect their market share.


The Solar City business model still operates mostly on the lease model. They pay for the system and you lower your electric bill on day 1... that's for the 99%.... not the 1%. Adding storage to the mix makes solar PV economically viable in areas that the utility is pushing back against solar.

Batteries are projected to be <$100/kWh and Solar modules <$0.30/w by 2020.... these estimates have a long history of being overly conservative... Where do you think nuclear will be? At what cost point will you agree that nuclear simply can't compete?

 

[AntronX]

Grid-independent... using the grid as a backup...

Hmm, "grid independent" while relying on the grid for 30% of demand. Does not sound very independent to me.

Batteries are projected to be <$100/kWh and Solar modules <$0.30/w by 2020.... these estimates have a long history of being overly conservative... Where do you think nuclear will be? At what cost point will you agree that nuclear simply can't compete?

You can have solar at $0.00/W and it still will not compete with nukes. How do you power Russia in -30C winter overcast for 15 days straight with cheap solar? Only two carbon-free sources - hydro and nuclear. Hydro is limited by geography, nukes are not. Distributed small modular reactors can also provide free district heating in winter with waste heat and be walkaway safe. But atmosphere is a free garbage dump right now, so why care when coal and gas are dirt cheap?

 

[nwdiver]

You can have solar at $0.00/W and it still will not compete with nukes.

Well... I guess we'll just have to let history be the judge... I predict we'll have ~30x more solar and wind in 2030 and ~90% less nuclear... that's still more clean energy which is the goal. Sure... remote Siberia might need a SMR... but for the other 99.3% of the world solar and wind will work just fine.

When we nationalize the grid and have an infinite supply of cash then we'll see the nuclear renaissance... I'm not waiting for that miracle. I'm installing solar as fast as I can....

 

[AntronX]

Well... I guess we'll just have to let history be the judge... I predict we'll have ~30x more solar and wind in 2030 and ~90% less nuclear...

Meh, we'll see.

 

[Cyberax]

So let me recap my arguments:
1) Nuclear power can easily and safely provide baseload generation.
2) You can NOT get away from classic synchronous generation in large-scale grids.
3) Nuclear is not cost-competitive with natural gas.
4) However, you can NOT build a CO2-neutral economy without nuclear power. Even with huge capital investments (on the scale of yearly GDP). There's nothing even close to filling the role of nuclear generation.

 

[David_Cary]

This is directed at nwdiver and it was too long winded and probably repetitive....

Just going to do some back of the napkin calcs.

I have 2 EVs with a little above average mileage. New energy star rated house (not fantastic but better than 90% of existing stock). I have a 6 kw system facing East. I have a tiny South option that has solar hot water already on it. For summer, I would need 3x what I have to be net zero and about 20kwh for average night. Throw in some cloudy days and I need 60 kwh. Long driving and cloudy - 80 kwh.

Ok - that is pretty doable.

Worst month in last 12 was Jan. 1.92 MWh used, 282 kwh generated.

Now for the winter, I need 7x the panels and 500 kwh for cloudy weather. I can't fit 7x the panels (hard to fit 3x - but perhaps possible). Using $100 per kwh (which isn't happening yet), I would need $50k for batteries. And then 40kw in panels at a barely attainable 2$ a watt and I need $80k. So I am at $130k to go off grid. (reality is double that of course).

Oops I still use NG. Not much - $100 a year. But I'll skip that. I charge often at work but I'll skip that too. (I have heat pumps with NG backup, solar hot water has electric backup).

Now I'm sure I could insulate better. Build some double walls and put triple panes in - maybe just add storms. So I could maybe get by on less but I'm being very very nice and allowing NG use and work charging. (Now work charging in the summer is totally free with excess solar - but we are talking winter here).

So off grid is nuts. I pay $200 or so a year for grid access. Another $300 in demand charges. I'm sure that will go up in 10 years and I'm sure batteries and panels will come down. But it will probably be $700 for grid and $90k to go off grid. Yes - I'll generate enough to save $1000 in electric so my true total grid is $1700. That is still a never payback at 10 years in the future. Maybe 20?

Wind is great but that doesn't satisfy the off grid dream. So any argument that off grid is somehow in the future for people makes your logic look wacky. EVs are the grid's dream come true. And so is wind. Now give me a NG fuel cell, cheap NG and solar and I can go off grid. But then I'm using NG instead of wind or nuclear.

Ok back to nuclear argument. If you had any credibility though, off-grid and carbon free took it away. EVs and winter heating make it impractical. I'm betting the 5 houses you took to net zero didn't have 2 EVs and a real winter - or weren't carbon free. I suppose it is possible in an area with zero heating requirement if you don't drive much. But scaling to the entire US - not likely.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

This is directed at nwdiver and it was too long winded and probably repetitive....

Just going to do some back of the napkin calcs.

I have 2 EVs with a little above average mileage. New energy star rated house (not fantastic but better than 90% of existing stock). I have a 6 kw system facing East. I have a tiny South option that has solar hot water already on it. For summer, I would need 3x what I have to be net zero and about 20kwh for average night. Throw in some cloudy days and I need 60 kwh. Long driving and cloudy - 80 kwh.

Ok - that is pretty doable.

Worst month in last 12 was Jan. 1.92 MWh used, 282 kwh generated.

Now for the winter, I need 7x the panels and 500 kwh for cloudy weather. I can't fit 7x the panels (hard to fit 3x - but perhaps possible). Using $100 per kwh (which isn't happening yet), I would need $50k for batteries. And then 40kw in panels at a barely attainable 2$ a watt and I need $80k. So I am at $130k to go off grid. (reality is double that of course).

Oops I still use NG. Not much - $100 a year. But I'll skip that. I charge often at work but I'll skip that too. (I have heat pumps with NG backup, solar hot water has electric backup).

Now I'm sure I could insulate better. Build some double walls and put triple panes in - maybe just add storms. So I could maybe get by on less but I'm being very very nice and allowing NG use and work charging. (Now work charging in the summer is totally free with excess solar - but we are talking winter here).

So off grid is nuts. I pay $200 or so a year for grid access. Another $300 in demand charges. I'm sure that will go up in 10 years and I'm sure batteries and panels will come down. But it will probably be $700 for grid and $90k to go off grid. Yes - I'll generate enough to save $1000 in electric so my true total grid is $1700. That is still a never payback at 10 years in the future. Maybe 20?

Wind is great but that doesn't satisfy the off grid dream. So any argument that off grid is somehow in the future for people makes your logic look wacky. EVs are the grid's dream come true. And so is wind. Now give me a NG fuel cell, cheap NG and solar and I can go off grid. But then I'm using NG instead of wind or nuclear.

Ok back to nuclear argument. If you had any credibility though, off-grid and carbon free took it away. EVs and winter heating make it impractical. I'm betting the 5 houses you took to net zero didn't have 2 EVs and a real winter - or weren't carbon free. I suppose it is possible in an area with zero heating requirement if you don't drive much. But scaling to the entire US - not likely.

Sorry to just jump in to this discussion, but you've brought real world data into this hypothetical discussion and I didn't want to miss the chance to play with it.

Would you mind redoing your calculations without the energy consumed by your EV's? The EV's probably consume power only at night, so they're the worst type of load to deal with for solar+batteries.

TIA!