>Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower),
Something to remember here is that the vast majority of that 26% is hydroelectric (maybe 18% or so). Wind and solar provide only a few percent of the power that is produced.
The bad news with those numbers is that they won't be able to grow hydroelectric by very much as there aren't many places they haven't built a dam already. The good news is that with such low percentages for solar and wind, there is plenty of growth available before they run into real problems with the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
If China can decarbonize its grid with solar/wind and some new grid storage they develop in the future that would be amazing. If China ends up decarbonizing its grid by building hundreds of nuclear power plants along with solar/wind, that would also be amazing. I think we are in agreement that the goal is really to decarbonize the grid.
Indeed, however this is all about heavy industry (producing gridpower), and about recent trends. Hydroelectricity is a way older industry than solar and wind.
In China the effect of spreading-out production units is well-known since at least 2009: "Liu et al. investigated wind energy complementarity across China, demonstrating that whereas a combination of wind and solar resources over a given area reduces the occurrence of zero-power hours, wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production, if a large enough area is considered."
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640...
> the goal is really to decarbonize the grid
It is a goal, not the (single) goal. There are others criteria: risk, waste, cost, dependency towards uranium, decommission-related uncertainties, ability to export know-how with profit...
>...wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production
If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year. Unclear how much variability there is over time or will be in the future with climate change. The estimate is that over a wide enough area the occurrence of zero power hours is greatly reduced but it doesn't claim that wind is sufficient to provide baseline power production. We will see I guess.
>...Denmark already produces 55% of its electricity thanks to wind and targets 84% by 2035
The capacity factor for wind power is still low in Denmark. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity. This works for Denmark, but not every country will be so lucky to have neighbors with nuclear and hydro capability. For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only on solar and wind would require about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is literally 183 times their current capacity.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5...
If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago. In order for everyone to only use intermittent energy sources though, it will be necessary.
>> the goal is really to decarbonize the grid
>It is a goal, not the (single) goal.
It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using fossil fuels to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. In that case - great, problem solved! But... what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?
> If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year
They selected 2011 as representative and detailed it, however the underlying numerical series cover decades (see the 'Ninja' project https://www.renewables.ninja/ )
> how much variability ((...) will be in the future with climate change
Indeed, there is a non-negligible challenge here. It is also true for nuclear, for example when it comes to cool a reactor down: water ill be more and more scarce, heating it isn't neutral, installing a reactor on seashore exposes it to sea level rise...
> capacity factor
Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste.
>. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity.
Yes, and each and every clean energy source type now needs such a backup.
No industrialized nation (bar maybe very low-population density coupled with huge natural resources, mainly hydro) can produce all its electricity without either not negligible curtailment or burning fossil fuel in 'backup' powerplants.
Even hugely-nuclearized France could never, cannot (and don't even plan to) produce all its electricity thanks to nuclear: around 9% of their electricity is produced by backup 'thermal' plants: gas (methane), oil, coal, see https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... ), either due to load-following or peak consumption.
> For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only on solar and wind
AFAI no nation targets such an ordeal, they plan to reduce the need for backup units to an acceptable (and always lower) level thanks to production units geographic spread-out, mix (solar, wind...), storage (including V2G) and low-impact curtailment.
> If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago
No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap), and also as some rather recent advances (network management enabling better integration of intermittent sources, low-loss long-haul powerlines ((U)HVDC...) facilitate such projects.
Applying nuclear reactors to real-world problems (in submarines, aircraft carriers and ice breakers) date back the 1950's, and the very same reactor architecture (PWR) wasn't adopted as the main type of electricity-production unit before the 1970's.
> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out?
It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight.
> If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?
For the time being, and quite probably for (at best) the next 20 years, there is no such option. Nuclear produces about 2.2% of world's total final consumed energy, with approx running 450 reactors. In order for it to produce about 22% we need to build approx 4500 reactors. This isn't even an option. France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040...
>Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste.
Not really. Capacity factor affects everything about a power source - it is stilly to pretend it is not a big deal. If you have to overbuild by a factor of N, that obviously increases the cost, land use, etc by that factor. If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs by those billions of dollars. Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor.
>> If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago
>No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap),
Even when the power sources weren't intermittent, there were still many reasons to try and develop grid storage. Plants offline due to maintenance, differences in demand over a 24 hour period, seasonal differences in demand, etc. Any power plant is obviously a huge capital cost and having to build extra plants is not anyone's preference. The goal for having grid storage is why pumped hydro was developed over 100 years ago. In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage. If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have been using it for a long time.
>> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out?
>It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight.
You didn't actually answer the question.
If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them. France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power. We will see how many nuclear plants China builds over the next 20 years.
>France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040...
In 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight. Admittedly politics always gets involved in this kind of thing and technology is always changing, so we will see how many they actually build.
Let's see what is silly here. I wrote "way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) (and doesn't produce) waste", let's check the details:
> overbuild
> that obviously increases the cost, land use, etc by that factor.
The capacity factor, by itself, means nothing because its impact isn't direct: it is applied to some costs, emissions and land use. The costs of renewables is very low and declining (nuclear is high and raising), therefore the fact that a given production unit isn't always active doesn't cost. See the total cost of the energy produced (integrating capacity/load factors): https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
As for land use the main renewable reserve in nearly all nations are offshore wind which doesn't use land, or hydraulics. Moreover in most nations there are unused/unusable zones, even on buildings/parking lots/arable zones (photovoltaics)/...
> If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs
Indeed, and that's the reason why the very fact that the total cost of the energy produced by renewable energy sources is low (and declining) is of paramount importance because it offers financial provisions to compensate this.
The rest (no risk of major accident (nor risk of any terrorist/military attack triggering it), no dangerous waste, no dependency towards sources of uranium, no daunting decommissions, no hypercentralisation nor heavy bureaucracy necessary...) comes as a bonus.
> Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor.
Absolutely, my thesis is not that such a strategy isn't always sound, it is that a low capacity/load factor isn't, by itself, a show-stopper.
> Even when the power sources weren't intermittent, there were still many reasons to try and develop grid storage
Yes, and it lowers the costs of the huge grid beneficial to renewable sources, because a quite large grid is good whatever the type of source (renewable or not).
> In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage.
Because fossil fuels are so convenient for storage... and we then neglected carbon emissions. Now that peak oil/gas and climate are threatening, our attitude towards fossil fuel has to change.
> If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have been using it for a long time.
This is not sound as the objectives (avoiding emitting carbon...) and technical constraints (wind turbine and solar panels now available are much more efficient and industrial than those available even only 25 years ago) were different than ours: fossil fuels were considered vastly superior. They aren't anymore.
>>> (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out?
>> It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight.
> You didn't actually answer
IMHO I did, bar any other option than nuclear or renewable sources. Can you name one?
> If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them.
In which wonderland 'wanting to' is equivalent to 'being able to'?
> France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power
France was then equipped with heavy industry (it isn't anymore ), financially at ease (after the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ) while it now deeply indebted, facing a way smoother challenge (the amount of electricity consumed was then a third of what it now it, moreover there was no 'electrification' (replacing all fossil fuels uses by electricity) real plan) and pushed by a major strategic risk (Arabs/Israel - triggered risk of oil embargo) while climate wasn't really a thing for long (and facts show that it really isn't yet).
This nuclear fleet then produced up to 90% of their gridpower. Note: this electricity is 25% of the total amount of final energy consumed in France.
Admitting that it is an official governmental announcement (it doesn't seem so(?)) and given that China already has 50GW, that's maybe 100GW new (way less than 150 standard reactors).
Those last years China built between 1 and 5 reactors per year and nuclear produces about 6% of their electricity.
Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), and 1200GW planned for 2030. In 2020 China added 71,6GW windturbine power.
From your lazard source on levelized costs, take a look at the Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Storage Comparison-Capacity table. The storage extra costs to get around the variability of wind and solar are substantial. They will hopefully come down in the future, but when and exactly how much, no one could really say right now. If you want to actually rely 100% on renewable, you need to take into account the capacity factor - to pretend the intermittency of these power sources doesn't matter is silly.
>…As for land use the main renewable reserve in nearly all nations are offshore wind…
Well there are dozens of landlocked countries, so I am not sure I would say 'nearly all'
>…which doesn't use land, or hydraulics. Moreover in most nations there are unused/unusable zones, even on buildings/parking lots/arable zones (photovoltaics)/...
You have mentioned several times how cheap renewable power has become. As your source shows, rooftop solar has not been, is not and likely will never be cheap. Consumer rooftop is particularly expensive and the cost is is usually hidden by implementing a big subsidy to wealthy consumers that is paid for by less wealthy consumers - sort of a reverse robin hood scheme. We are well past the point where anyone can argue we should subsidize rooftop solar because we need to help build a fledgling industry - yet I see solar advocates continue to advocate for this wealth transfer from the poor to the well off.
>> If you need to spend billions of dollars to add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage, that also increases the costs
>Indeed, and that's the reason why the very fact that the total cost of the energy produced by renewable energy sources is low (and declining) is of paramount importance because it offers financial provisions to compensate this.
That is a bit of a handwave answer that ignores the actual costs (and difficulties) of doing that. One study estimated that to support renewables, the US would have to double the number of power lines at a cost of around 700 billion. Such a project could end up being much more expensive than that since in places like CA, climate change is causing dryer summers, which has lead to many more fires from power lines. There is now a move to spend billions to move current power lines underground. Besides that huge buildout expense of the power grid, one estimate is that maintaining even the current grid already costs $750 per year per customer. A substantially larger grid will cost more to maintain. Besides direct cost, getting agreement from all the stakeholders seems to sometimes be an issue - even the relatively small proposed Tres Amigas SuperStation has dragged on for many years.
>> Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor.
>Absolutely, my thesis is not that such a strategy isn't always sound, it is that a low capacity/load factor isn't, by itself, a show-stopper.
I never said it was a 'show stopper'. I said it was a big deal and right now it is neither cheap or simple to work around.
>> In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage.
>Because fossil fuels are so convenient for storage...
A coal plant isn't cheap to build. A nuclear power plant isn't cheap to build. Building extra plants to cover for planned/unplanned maintenance, daily variations in demand, seasonal variations, etc. is very expensive and wouldn't have been done if anyone thought building grid storage was going to be cheap or simple. The very fact that the first pumped hydro was built a hundred years ago means people have been thinking about it for a very long time. The difference is that coal/nuclear/hydro don't absolutely need grid storage. Solar and wind do, so even if the cost is high, it would need to be paid.
Yes there are lots of people researching grid storage since it would be impossible to build a reliable grid using intermittent sources without it. And hopefully, we will find some technologies that are economical and scalable. In order to meet climate goals, there will have to be much more dependence on the grid as fossil fuels are removed from transportation, heating, etc. The goal has to be to make a carbon free grid that is at least as reliable as the current grid. As the small power failure in Texas showed blackouts kill people. Not only does our economy rely on reliable electrical power, so do human lives.
>> You didn't actually answer
>IMHO I did, bar any other option than nuclear or renewable sources. Can you name one?
My original question was simple:
>…It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using fossil fuels to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. In that case - great, problem solved! But... what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?
>> If countries actually decide they need them and commit to building them, they obviously can build them.
>In which wonderland 'wanting to' is equivalent to 'being able to'?
If we could build nuclear plants 50 years ago, we can build them now. This isn't like nuclear fusion where we've never built a commercial plant. France went from about 0% to >70% electrical power from nuclear energy in 15 years using the technology available in the 1970s. We haven't entered some primitive dark age where he knowledge to build a nuclear power plant has been lost to time.
>> France was able to build enough plants in a 15 year period to make it the majority of their power
The EPR is a next generation design that was supposed to be a French/German collaboration, but since Germany decided to phase out nuclear power, Siemens sold their shares in the joint venture. (If Siemens had been involved, maybe things might have gone smoother.) It does make one realize that the approach France took in the 70s of using a proven design and committing to building a number of them was a good approach. France has recently committed to to implementing small modular reactors, which is what a lot of people are recommending. We will see how they do.
>…Those last years China built between 1 and 5 reactors per year and nuclear produces about 6% of their electricity.
To add some context, in 2009, China's National Development and Reform Commission indicated the intention to raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power to 6% by 2020. In 2018 the China NDRC said that China's nuclear generating capacity must increase to 554 GWe by 2050 if the country is to play its part in limiting the global temperature rise to below 1.5 °C. They estimate nuclear power would grow to 28% of power transmitted on the grid.
In terms of the present, China has released its 14th Five-Year Plan covering the 2021-2025 period and announced its aim to increase its nuclear power capacity by 40% from 50 GW in 2020 to 70 GW in 2025.
Much as China now dominates solar cell production, it appears that they intend to dominate nuclear power plant construction. China plans to build as many as thirty nuclear power reactors in countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative by 2030.[17][18][19] On COP26 in 2021 China has announced plans to build 150 new civilian reactors until 2035.
If China can decarbonize its grid with solar/wind and some new grid storage they develop in the future that would be amazing. If China ends up decarbonizing its grid by building hundreds of nuclear power plants along with solar/wind, that would also be amazing.
> The storage extra costs to get around the variability of wind and solar are substantial.
Yes, and we have to consider new ways to tackle this, for example as already stated V2G (using vehicles' batteries, powerwalls...), green hydrogen...
> you need to take into account the capacity factor - to pretend the intermittency of these power sources doesn't matter is silly.
Yes, let me repeat: I don't ignore it and wrote that it is "way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) (and doesn't produce) waste", nothing less or more.
>> As for land use the main renewable reserve in nearly all nations are offshore wind…
> Well there are dozens of landlocked countries, so I am not sure I would say 'nearly all'
> You have mentioned several times how cheap renewable power has become. As your source shows, rooftop solar has not been, is not and likely will never be cheap.
This is true but, just as your argument about the LCOE not integrating all costs, don't neglect that a local (rooftop...) source alleviates all distribution costs and losses, and also consumer-dependency.
> big subsidy to wealthy consumers that is paid for by less wealthy consumers
This is a political problem.
> I see solar advocates continue to advocate for this wealth transfer
I, for one, am opposed to any subsidizing.
>> add new transmission lines or some hypothetical new grid storage
> that ignores the actual costs (and difficulties) of doing that
I showed that a dense grid is pursued whatever the type of source (nuclear also massively benefits from it), and this is true for many perspective (economical, supply guarantee, flexibility...). The era of loose and local grids is over since the 1970's.
> One study estimated that to support renewables, the US would have to double the number of power lines at a cost of around 700 billion
Let's approximate. Production costs / MWh (LCOE): renewables at $80 (this is wayyyy too high...), nuclear at $120 (wayyy too low) / MWh
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
(/ 700 160): the system will be paid for in 5 years
That's neglecting that renewable relieve us from bad surprises: major accident, uranium prices/availability, waste management, decommission overcosts/overdelays...
> being much more expensive than that since in places like CA
> climate change is causing dryer summers, which has lead to many more fires from power lines
This is true whatever the type of source (renewable, nuclear, oil...).
Climate change will also impact nuclear reactors installed near rivers (cool down).
> to move current power lines underground
And this is, indeed, a major way to bump costs up. However there is no other realistic way when the line has to cross a densely populated area.
Renewables only add quantitatively to the necessary grid. Qualitatively the very mesh (interconnections) are already considered as justified (economically sound) even with a 100% nuclear (at this stage completely impossible) option.
> getting agreement from all the stakeholders seems to sometimes be an issue
Yes! This is a major point. It also plays for production units: the NIMBY effect is quite stronger against nuclear and fossils than against renewable units.
>> Everyone making any power source will try to get as high as possible capacity factor.
>Absolutely, my thesis is not that such a strategy isn't always sound, it is that a low capacity/load factor isn't, by itself, a show-stopper.
I never said it was a 'show stopper'. I said it was a big deal and right now it is neither cheap or simple to work around.
>>> In the 100 years since pumped hydro was developed, we haven't really deployed much of any other kind of grid storage.
>> Because fossil fuels are so convenient for storage...
> A coal plant isn't cheap to build. A nuclear power plant isn't cheap to build
They are way cheaper, compact and they used to be less-NIMBY-inducing than double-lake hydro plants!
They were more flexible too, and stay way better at inter-seasonal storage.
> Building extra plants to cover for planned/unplanned maintenance, daily variations in demand, seasonal variations, etc. is very expensive and wouldn't have been done if anyone thought building grid storage was going to be cheap or simple.
> coal/nuclear/hydro don't absolutely need grid storage. Solar and wind do, so even if the cost is high, it would need to be paid.
True, however a very large part of hydro potential is already built and ready to serve for quite a while.
> the intermittent nature of wind and solar
> what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?
Nuclear is, right now, not panning out. It produces around 2.2% of world's final energy consumed, with 450 active reactors. In order to nuclear to provide a mere 22% of the final energy needed now we have to build 4500 new reactors. The average new reactor type produces around 1.4 times more than the average existing one, therefore 3215 new reactors would be sufficient (neglecting the necessary replacement of existing old ones). Does it seems realistic to you? Did you check the overcosts and overdelays of reactors built since the 2000's? They are huge!
Even investing in order to build a few reactors is distracting huge money from more efficient tools (renewables). Worse: as fixed costs (mining uranium, designing reactors, safety agencies, waste management logistics...) are high and necessary for any amount of reactors. Paying all this for a few reactors leads to an even more expensive system, distracting even more resources from more efficient tools.
>> In which wonderland 'wanting to' is equivalent to 'being able to'?
> If we could build nuclear plants 50 years ago, we can build them now.
Since the 2000's, which nuclear reactor was built without being massively overbudget and overdelay, then now works flawlessly?
> France went from about 0% to >70% electrical power from nuclear energy in 15 years
I already answered.
This is not exactly comparable.
France faced a way smoother challenge the amount of electricity consumed was then a third of what it is now.
France was then equipped with heavy industry (it isn't anymore ), financially at ease (after the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ) while it now deeply indebted, moreover there was no 'electrification' (replacing all fossil fuels uses by electricity) real plan) and pushed by a major strategic risk (Arabs/Israel - triggered risk of oil embargo) while climate wasn't really a thing for long (and facts show that it really isn't yet).
This nuclear fleet then produced up to 90% of their gridpower. Note: this electricity is 25% of the total amount of final energy consumed in France.
> The EPR is a next generation design that was supposed to be a French/German collaboration, but since Germany decided to phase out nuclear power, Siemens sold their shares
France mastered building reactors, and therefore can theoretically recover (Siemens bailed out in 2009).
> China has released its 14th Five-Year Plan covering the 2021-2025 period and announced its aim to increase its nuclear power capacity by 40%
from 50 GW in 2020 to 70 GW in 2025.
My answer stays: Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), and 1200GW planned for 2030. In 2020 China added 71,6GW windturbine power.
Something to remember here is that the vast majority of that 26% is hydroelectric (maybe 18% or so). Wind and solar provide only a few percent of the power that is produced.
The bad news with those numbers is that they won't be able to grow hydroelectric by very much as there aren't many places they haven't built a dam already. The good news is that with such low percentages for solar and wind, there is plenty of growth available before they run into real problems with the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
If China can decarbonize its grid with solar/wind and some new grid storage they develop in the future that would be amazing. If China ends up decarbonizing its grid by building hundreds of nuclear power plants along with solar/wind, that would also be amazing. I think we are in agreement that the goal is really to decarbonize the grid.