Pro-nuke People Look Askance at Energy Storage and Variable Resources
I’ve mentioned that I like to keep tabs on a pro-nuke (anti-renewables) group, and make helpful contributions to their discussions. Recently, I notice that they’re a bit freaked out that the cost of lithium-ion batteries is soon to fall to $100/kWh, and they’re trying to compile a list of reasons that this won’t create a significantly positive effect on the viability of renewable energy resources.
Of course, I’m always trying to get them to make the admission that renewables can and will play an important role in our energy future. In that vein, here, I wrote:
IMO, it’s time to acknowledge that, given the declining prices of solar and wind, along with developments in the other flavors of renewables, the advent of cost-effective storage, and the addition of transmission capacity that renewable energy is very likely to play a significant role in our future.
I grant, however, that all this is speculative. What happens if advanced nuclear comes along faster than anyone predicted? Could happen. If you want a good example, look at Tri Alpha Energy, the fusion people out here in California who just figured out how to maintain their high-energy plasma field for an indefinite period of time (formerly it was 10^-6 seconds). Obviously, there are promising things happening in the thorium space as well.
We’re ALL hoping that nuclear can be a safe, cost-effective, and near-term way to replace the vast majority of fossil fuels (including oil, as nuclear will be used to charge electric vehicles). But if it can’t, it’s becoming increasingly clear that renewables can be there in a big way, given a significant push.
If renewables were actually practical, there would be more people disconnecting themselves from the grid. The reason they don’t do so is that it would be far too expensive even to consider unless they have no access to a grid.
Imagine how much energy storage would be required to provide uninterrupted power to operate a home which is reasonably energy efficient. Let us assume that the home is powered by a PV solar system. The batteries would have to provide sufficient power when the output of the PV system is greatly reduced for several days in a row by clouds. The stored energy would have to be able to operate the lighting, refrigerator, electric stove, heating and air conditioning system (which could be a reversible heat pump), washing machine, and miscellaneous other things. The cost of adequate batteries would be greater than most people would be willing to pay, even if PV panels were free. Moreover, it would be an on-going expense because deep cycling batteries shortens their life. Batteries also have a self-discharge rate which becomes an important consideration when there is a huge amount of battery capacity because it would increase the amount of PV power required.
People who cannot connect to the grid and want PV power either have to spend a huge amount for batteries or tolerate minimal and unreliable power.
It may be that the unit cost would be lower if battery storage were provided at the grid level. However, the cost would still be so high that such a storage system, so far as I know, has never been implemented on a large grid even in Germany which eschews nuclear power. Instead of using storage, Germany has actually built more coal burning power plants as they have phased out nuclear plants.
Of course renewables have a rôle to play, but that rôle is not to be a major source of power for large developed countries. But until renewable systems have demonstrated their ability to do the job without fossil fuel or nuclear back-up, I shall continue to see them as only practical in niche situations.
Frank yes you point out some of the challenges that Re faces and the current cost of storage make it a niche application.
But as Craig said in the Post the cost of batteries is dropping faster than once believed.
It makes economic sense to supplement solar systems on schools / commercial solar installs in high demand costs utility service areas like California and Hawaii.
Utilities there have 2 or 3 peak kw ( demand) [pricing levels. They charge close $ 50 for Super Critical Peak which is one hour or 2, then there is Critical peak which is $30 or so per kw for another block of time 3 or 4 hours then the regular demand costs at $20 per kw. ( the exact figures are higher dont have the rate schedules in front of me.)
The battery tied to the solar using Energy mgmt controls draws from battery to Clip the peaks and the first two are expensive . So the high cost avoidance makes the economics work as the battery firms the solar output to escape the demand charges during the critical times. Computerized and wireless communications systems integrate different technologies to meet the load!
It will grow out to other markets .
The price has to come down much more for residential applications to gain mass acceptance in the city grids. etc. So I tend to agree with you . Many people think people are going to buy complete systems
for homes that is limited market for many reasons .
lets face it consumers are used to Renting their Power so trying to be the Owner of the power supply requires much more dollars of investment than majority of people are prepared to invest. They will rent power .
One of my associates is working for a co in Denver that markets a nickel based battery that can discharge down to 97 % with out damaging so they have broken the usual 20 5 discharge level. 12 year warranty in household duty cycle application so the Winds of Change are gaining a Tail wind! perhaps
I counter to you again the demand of the future is modular so supply can be modular and a mix of technology. If nuclear Genie is going to graduate from tap dancing Mode into production mode it most likely will be one of the Thorium or SMR modular Formats.
Large base load units that are 1,200 to 1,500 megs may be yesterdays Vintage for a different ERA that is passing ….future is modular. Kinda like the 3 ton cars of the 1950’s thru 1970’s Chrome and Fins and Big V 8 s engines. Passe !
SOLAR PV single racking is reaching 35 % capacity factor and wind is starting to average 40 % capacity factor so filling the supply gaps with modular gas or the possible SMR’s makes sense.
When natural gas reaches $7 or so MMBTU SOLAR CSP WITH 6 TO 12 HOURS OF molten salt storage will come on line in certain regions of the world where the Sun light matches up. These plants will be Dispatch able and run almost 18 hours a day.
They may be able to run with NO gas backup at all 24 hrs . The technology may switch to Sand and another storage medium that works better than the Molten Salt.
So nuclear has more competition coming down the Pike as they say. Morocco and South Africa are building 5 of these plants now. These CSP units LCOE is in 10.5 to 12.5 cents per kwhr. Not bad at all no radio active waste etc to deal with . This is happening NOW .
So nuclear is in a long distance race with Wind, solar and Solar ,CSP and Geo Thermal and other technologies.
It is interesting and lots of Transformation to come !
take care
I’m not sure I would call wind energy, something that represents 5% of the US grid mix (and growing) a “niche application.”
You must have all missed it – so I will copy and paste it here again. please read it carefully.
Oh and by the way, it is from Craig leading off with this very topic. Scoll up to check.
………………..Craig said:-
“I grant, however, that all this is speculative. What happens if advanced nuclear comes along faster than anyone predicted? Could happen. If you want a good example, look at Tri Alpha Energy, the fusion people out here in California who just figured out how to maintain their high-energy plasma field for an indefinite period of time (formerly it was 10^-6 seconds). Obviously, there are promising things happening in the thorium space as well.
We’re ALL hoping that nuclear can be a safe, cost-effective, and near-term way to replace the vast majority of fossil fuels (including oil, as nuclear will be used to charge electric vehicles). But if it can’t, it’s becoming increasingly clear that renewables can be there in a big way, given a significant push.”
Craig! What on earth has happened to your entrenched views?
Are you contemplating jumping ship? Or maybe just having a dollar each way perhaps to hedge your bets?
Your hypocrisy on this one is breathtaking. What happened to your mantra’s about “scaling up” of solar, wind, battery energy systems all over the place?
Unwittingly, you are making me look more interesting and relevant now!! Haha its all a bit of fun really.
Lawrence Coomber
What I wrote here is entirely consistent with the position I’ve had on the subject from the beginning.
@ Craig – I did not mean to mis communicate on battery and wind.
I meant to say battery to support solar systems to reduce peak demands in areas that have the type of peak load premium grid pricing etc. That is the niche for Now.
As Batteries come down in price they may expand into more viable residential and across the board add ons to solar systems. And grow out of niche position.
Wind is not Niche at all but a main stream generating plant now as is solar tracking projects. The utility’s would not be buying the huge volume of megawatts if the solar and wind were Toys .
globally over 1,000,000 people work in wind in some capacity. Wind turbines are now reaching 6 megs per pole and soon 8 megs per pole are being deployed off Netherlands , so it speaks Volumes for increased energy Yield and positive economics etc etc.
Wind lends itself to pumped hydro storage marriage of technologies as it tends to blow at night for on shore wind. this is niche constrained by locations.
Night is off peak so that is the match of the two technologies. Use excess wind at night to drive motor pumps to recycle the water back above into the storage reservoirs and then do your discharge and hydro production during the day to meet Peak demands. Its called Energy and Resource Management. A good Match Up but our nuclear friends perspective is a 1 size fits all and bigger must be better yate yate yate so perhaps the concept does not resonate as it should! ??
Nuclear just got reprieves in NY thanks to the GREENS ! where is the appreciation ??? A thank less world !
A growing part of the energy solutions we need is Indeed Blowing in the Wind!
Silent,
You wrote, “The utility’s would not be buying the huge volume of megawatts if the solar and wind were Toys .”.
In learning the function of the control room at Power New Mexico, I found out that PNM buys the amount of power it needs at the lowest available price. Thus, if they are running short on power and an electricity from a wind power provider has power available at that time and it is the lowest price, they will buy the wind power. If it is not available at that moment, they will buy power from elsewhere.
However, wind power is not always available. When it is not available, they will buy power from some other source. Wind and solar power cannot replace fossil fuels at all times the reason being that they are INTERMITTENT sources of power. Thus, they cannot, without huge amounts of storage, eliminate the use of fossil fuels which is what we must do. Eliminating 50%, or 70%, or 80% of fossil fuel usage is not adequate; we must approach 100%!!
Moreover, unless renewables are completely reliable, other power systems must be maintained and ready to go into action when renewables fall short. That adds to cost, especially when they must be kept spinning to enable them to deliver power on short notice.
So, utilities’ buying huge amounts of wind and / or power does not mean that those renewables can replace practically all fossil fuel usage with currently available technology which, again, is what we must do.
I would be much more impressed if even a single example could be provided of a country or a large area which got 100% of its power from wind and solar systems for one year. Presumably Deutschland has been trying to do so for many years and they haven’t even come close. That is what it will take to convince me.
@ Frank
Nice post over all a few things to factor in.
Yes utilities system operators and the grid operators buy power on the Merit Order basis .
Historically this favored nuclear and coal as base load units and gas was the marginal unit brought on when needed during the day s peak.
Now the tables are turning as wind and solar are getting favored status both on price and also to reduce emissions.
The shale gas explosion has allowed gas to supplant coal as the base load and coupled with wind at night they are driving nuclear off the grid in the Mid west and NY and some other markets.
Also during the peak day times Solar plants are bringing down the Wholesale price of energy this hurts coal and is beginning to hurt nukes. So renewable s have the ability to create pricing havoc on the grid . In the case of coal its a easy call , turn them off !
In nuclear case if still safe plants etc , then society based on environmental Value of clean energy might choose to subsidize the nukes to keep them in the Game.
hence my earlier posts on the 3 NY nukes saved by green power.
Nuclear units in mid life supposed to be robust etc etc. Well their maintenance costs are so high they are struggling to compete with wind / gas at 04 cents on the grid. The nukes need close to 7 cents ( rounding) .
So that is what is currently going on. Realize also the marginal costs for solar and wind are lower than fossil fuel or nukes. Solar especially has almost no O & M unless all the inverters fail at once which is a Unlikely event.
These are some inside facts.
Also recognize that solar and wind are very Young technologies so they are still improving and will get better.
Now I do accept the question just how far we can go as far as total saturation on generation with intermittent resources without using too much back up redundancy with the cost and fuel emissions .
I don’t have a firm position here and no firm answer.
Germany has come close to 100 % solar generating with some wind for brief times. They also can spill over generation to neighboring countries at certain times. but they do have to have the dirty coal back up which is counter intuitive to think about net emissions impact perspective.
I see that as a transitional issue. Once gas goes down in price in Europe ( that is another story ) Germany may restart the newer and cleaner gas units that are idled for last 3 or 4 years and turn off the coal.
But Germany’s labor economy is showing signs of wear so the political forces are telling government to keep mining some coal and using some coal for Jobs retention. !
So there you go a interesting MIX of competing forces etc etc etc .
That is why I think the prices for energy should be based on the Value to society goals and not a commodity price per BTU.
That is why I accept some additional subsidy for the 3 nukes in NY and the 3 in Illinois and Iowa as they reduce global warming. I dont think we can be blind ideologues and serve the public’s long term interests.
So your doubts about RE meeting all our needs is a Valid Question but perhaps some of what I responded with narrows some of the issue for you. Last but important to consider is that Demand for power is changing and it is not the 1960’s thru late 1980’s . America s industrial base Has been Hallowed out by globalism and that reduced demand for power is one of the many consequences ! The future will bring more change. For sure.
Take care Thanks for good points Frank.