Comment by mrtksn
2 days ago
I'm very excited for solar. In Europe we don't have much fossil fuels, so our "hippiness" is not really a choice. I see some people campaigning against European green energy or the renewables and it doesn't make sense whatsoever unless you are aligned with Russia or USA.
The coolest thing about solar is that the devices to capture the fusion energy in the skies are manufactured, unlike other options being built. I'm not anti-nuclear but I don't like its extremely long building phase.
I sometimes fantasize about closed loop fully automatic solar PV panels factories that we can build on some remote area, just bring in the raw material and let it auto-expand using the energy it captures. As it grows geometrically at some point we can decide that we no longer want it to grow and start taking out the finished PV panels and installing them everywhere.
Storage for the night probably wouldn't be that much of a problem, not everything needs to work 24/7 and for these things that need to work 24/7 we can use the already installed nuclear capacity and as the energy during the day becomes practically unlimited we can just stor it however we like even if its quite inefficient. With unlimited energy space wouldn't be a problem, we can dig holes and transfer materials into anything we need with the practically free daytime energy.
According to this in many parts of the world solar + batteries is enough to provide 97-98% of all the electricity 24hr 365 days a year
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...
Actually, that report is stronger than you're implying.
It's saying solar + batteries is enough to supply 97% of power cheaper than any other way in sunny locales.
It's possible to get 99.99% of your power with solar + batteries, you'd just need a lot of batteries. The news is that batteries have got so cheap that you're better installing enough batteries to hit 97% and leave your natgas peakers idle 97% of the time. That number used to be a lot lower, and that 97% number will be higher every year.
The other cool thing about that report is that it gives a number of 90% for non-ideal places. Sure solar is cheap in sunny locales, but that solar is cheap in places that aren't sunny is far more exciting to me.
The other thing the report isn't saying is that those numbers improve a lot if you have power transmission or other forms of power generation (say wind). They're calculating things as if you're a datacenter in a single location trying to yourself without any grid connection.
A small amount of other power generation whose output isn't correlated with the sun overhead should do a lot to make the last few percent (which come up when there's many cloudy days in a row) cheaper.
Solar's just knocking it out of the park at this point. Building out anything else new (as in you haven't already started) doesn't really make sense.
It is possible to get >100% from solar + batteries. All energy needs can be handled using only a small fraction of solar radiation reaching the planet’s surface.
That said, using it in aircraft (and a number of boots/submersibles) economically is an unsolved problem, but many other places can use it.
2 replies →
What's the energy and ecological cost of producing and transporting the batteries?
2 replies →
> I see some people campaigning against European green energy or the renewables and it doesn't make sense whatsoever unless you are aligned with Russia or USA.
No, you got this exactly the wrong way.
In fact, it was Russia who initially funded European (German) "green" movement, their main purpose was opposing nuclear (by far the greenest elective source of energy, as evidenced by France's carbon footprint), so that Europe (Germany) would get hooked on Russian gas.
The plan worked brilliantly!
Thats actually not that wrong, because there were contracts between Russia and germany for over then years, where Russia offered very cheap gas for the German industry (Nord-Stream I and II was build for that).
But beside this, Germany was leading in the anti-nuclear movement, and finally shut down there last nuclear power plant two years ago. Currently, in Germany, renewable energy sources [1] are around 75% in the summer and and 55% in the winter month. Renewable are growing fast [2].
[1] https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart....
[2] https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/remod_installed_power_...
Don't forget that they have power shortages and strict rationing in that equation. So at the end of the day they have 75% solar but it is not adequate for the population.
5 replies →
I'm afraid I have to ask here for a citation for your very confident but to my knowledge wrong statement that Russia (I suppose you mean the USSR) financed the green movement in Germany. Russia is equally a builder and supplier for nuclear energy, so makes significant profit on that angle and has no reason to fight nuclear.
Also the initial green movement was not against nuclear power per se but rather a peace movement against nuclear weapons, the concept just expanded over time to cover also civilian nuclear power, notably after Tchernobyl.
In contrast Russia is indeed known to finance both the far left (which has a lot of 'Ostalgia') and far right (whereby nationalism works against Western unity and strength) movements.
Nuclear power is great if you have it. Not even the French seem capable of building new ones at a timescale or cost that is relevant in todays world dominated by renewables together with storage recently kicking into overdrive.
It's great for the companies that run the plants because they are highly funded by subsidies from the society in which they are built. Nuclear power simply does not work from a capitalist point of view. Former Governments just swallowed this pill, because they had no natural resources that produce enough energy and they tried to stay independent. Now you can do this with renewable energy.
3 replies →
”The west is weak. Not capable of building like the motherland.”
So blowing up their own nuklear power plant in 1986 was a Soviet-Russian plot to make the German Green party popular? I find that a bit hard to believe ;)
(because the German anti-nuclear-energy movement and the rise of the Green party all got kickstarted by the Chernobyl disaster)
Whether or not this was true historically, its not really relavent now, where the primary green thing is solar which competes with russian gas.
My spidery senses after engaging with online anti-nuclear power propagandists in Sweden: they are still at it.
Reducing carbon emissions means electrifying a lot of things that were not electric before. We are going to need a lot more base generation than we have now.
Large grids, overbuilding renewables, diversity of renewables, short and medium term storage, and load shedding/dynamic pricing are all good starts but IMO won’t be enough— we should scale up nuclear too.
More, but not as much more as people often naively expect because it turns out converting liquid fuel into motion by burning/ exploding the fuel isn't very efficient on a small scale whereas electric motors are very efficient, so 1TW year of "People driving to work" in ICE cars does not translate into needing 1TW year extra electricity generation if they have electric cars instead, let alone 1TW year of extra network capacity to deliver it.
Where we're replacing fossil fuel heat with a heat pump we don't get that efficiency improvement from motors - burning fuel was 100% efficient per se, but the heat pump is > 100% efficient in those terms because it's not making heat just moving it.
Nuclear is much less popular than almost any generation technology, so you're fighting a significant political battle to make that happen.
We need a lot more. Right now only about 25 to 33 pc of our energy consumption is electric. Some of the rest will get significant efficiency benefit like you mention — cars, building heating, etc. Others, much less so— high temperature industrial heat, long distance transport, etc.
Reaching current nighttime use with storage and wind and existing hydro looks infeasible, and we need a minimum of twice as much.
Power to gas (and back to power or to mix with natural gas for existing uses) is probably a part of this, but nuclear improves this (allowing there to be less of it and allowing the electrolysis cells to be used for a greater fraction of the day.
9 replies →
One of the bigger other sources of emissions is transport; transport requires some of the electricity is condensed into a portable form regardless of the specifics — batteries, hydrogen, chunks of purified metal to burn, whatever — and that condensation means it doesn't get any extra novel benefit from expensive-but-consistent nuclear over cheap-but-predictably-intermittent renewables.
The scale is such that if we imagine a future with fully electrified cars, the batteries in those cars are more than enough to load-balance the current uses of the grid, and still are enough for the current uses of the grid when those batteries have been removed from the vehicles due to capacity wear making them no longer useful in a vehicle.
The best time for more nuclear power was the 90s, the second best was 10 years ago; unless you have a cunning plan you've already shown to an investor about how to roll out reactors much much faster, I wouldn't hold your breath on them.
> and that condensation means it doesn't get any extra novel benefit from expensive-but-consistent nuclear over cheap-but-predictably-intermittent renewables
This assumes you can do just the condensation during the day— E.g. you are amortizing the electrolyzers capital cost over just times when there is surplus power instead of something closer to 24/7.
1 reply →
>we should scale up nuclear too.
With a 5x higher LCOE and lead times of 15-20 years instead of 1-2 for solar/wind deployments, allocating money to scale up nuclear as well will just make the transition happen slower and at higher cost.
I don’t think we can scale up storage enough at any reasonable cost.
18 replies →
> we can dig holes and transfer materials into anything we need with the practically free daytime energy.
I guess you mean stuff like this https://gravitricity.com/ - I believe there's a few old coals mines in Scotland that have (/in progress) been retrofitted as gravity batteries to store renewables which is pretty cool (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd18q248jo)
Currently not even the battery capacity is the limiting factor; transmission lines are. The average lead tine to connect your generator to an existing high-voltage transmission line in 12 to 18 months in most of the EU. Building a new line takes years.
Due to that, much of the solar generation can't but be highly local.
I see transmission lines mentioned a lot, but surely keeping the lines we have loaded 100% of the time is part of the equation and batteries can help with that too.
I’d love to know how well loaded the lines are and a cost analysis of batteries at every sensible junction. Things like charging batteries close to solar and discharging them at night and having residential batteries to cope with peak demand.
Batteries can’t cover a dunkelflaute that lasts weeks. Like what happened last year (or the year before, not really sure).
How up-to-date are you on industrial battery installations? I ask because we're literally in the midst of an energy storage revolution, with battery capacity exploding massively in the last 2-3 years and no slowdown on the horizon. You may be arguing from a point of completely outdated information.
Let's take the worst case scenario and use it as an Argument.
You do t have to handle dubkelflauten because there is still gas capacity and gas can cover the 1% of times that it is necessary.
And in those extreme circumstances batteries reduce the gas capacity needed, by letting them run efficiently and the batteries handle the peaks just like a hybrid car. They also let you maximise transmission line usage for imports from nearby countries.
As long as you add the cost of the gas infrastructure to renewables, sure.
1 reply →
If you have enough battery manufacturing capacity to make all your vehicles electric, you have enough battery manufacturing capacity to cover a week or two of not just dunkelflaute but even "why is the moon hovering directly between us and the sun, isn't it supposed to be moving?", which is darker than that.
Well, we don't have that capacity.
2 replies →
Campaigning for renewables is a literal Russian priority.
https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schr%C3%B6der-sworn-...
Solar & wind need to be backed by dispatchable power. Nuclear & Coal are not a good fit as they need to run at the same output always. Batteries are good for predictable outages (night time) but not for long periods of cloudy days with no wind. Gas (which in europe comes from Russia) is the only real option.
Efficiency always matters. There’s always capex, ROI, and alternative opportunity costs for capital
It's OK to be inefficient sometimes.
Everyone feels this way until they personally have to pay more money for something.
1 reply →
I'm more concerned with what happened in Spain recently when solar was peak and they couldn't correct for a voltage oscillation. Power companies keep building solar and wind with grid following inverters so there's very little frequency and voltage inertia if steam turbines aren't running. We need to start legislatively mandating grid forming inverters or flywheels or something that maintains stability or blackouts will be get more and more common as we switch over.
The Spain blackout was caused by a multitude of reasons. Lack of stability was one of the factors, but there were other causes, such as energy generation facilities disconnecting while the oscillations were still under a nominal range, or a generator ordered to become online to induce stability, that started driving the load in the wrong direction. All this was compounded by a distribution network unable to redistribute or at least isolate the problems to individual regions, resulting in a complete blackout.
All in all, it's several things that need to be reinforced. The distribution network needs to be smarter. The energy generation facilities need to be tested through their entire voltage range, so they can be counted upon. And there has to be more voltage inertia available in the network.
That is more or less the recommendation from the report, except it wasn't a shortage of intertia, more a shortage of grid voltage control, which current rules prevent renewables from participating in, even if they are capable of it (it's mostly a case of the inverters, not the panels/turbines they draw from. Same with inertia). The blackout was mainly due to a failure of multiple participants in the grid to do what they were supposed to (failing to provide the voltage control it was contracted to do, in one case potentially failing to not drive oscillations into the grid, and failing to remain online within the required voltage range). A lot of the recommendations in the report are 'we should check the plants are up to scratch'.
Yeah, I've seen this with our own solar installation - when the grid frequency dips even a bit, our house cuts itself off from the grid, including whatever power it was feeding back. It seems like a recipe for instability - grid is overstrained, so the frequency dips, and suddenly tons of distributed solar generation drops off and makes the grid even more strained.
And with UPSes that beep when they kick on, it's become very apparent that this happens basically daily during the summer, when power demand for air conditioning is high.
The investigation has shown it was in fact nothing to do with renewable energy sources despite the noise made at the time - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-...
It wasn't nothing to do with them, but it was mostly not to do with their intrinsic characteristics, and a lot to do with how they were managed on the grid, and how some of them were not actually acting as they should (which was also true of some non-renewable sources). Saying 'nothing to do with renewable energy sources' when the report spends half its time talking about renewable energy plants and how they contributed to the problem is really not helpful (as unhelpful, IMO, as going on about how it proved renewables intrinsically make a grind unstable, because it gives credence to that argument).
The root of the issue here is underinvestment in storage. The weather is unpredictable, but the Sun is not. It doesn't suddenly get vastly brighter. Oscillation occurs within a predictable range. But partially because storage keeps getting cheaper, countries are investing at the bare minimum right now. Why buy $100 worth of batteries today when you can get it for $80 in three years?
Batteries are also inverter based sources so they typically don't add any inertia to the grid either. It's not really about the supply of power, it's about maintaining the 50hz frequency to a 0.002% accuracy (yes really) and keeping the voltage similarly exact, otherwise things start quickly disconnecting and tripping in a chain reaction. DC sources would work much better with a HVDC grid... if we had one.
3 replies →
> I'm very excited for solar. In Europe we don't have much fossil fuels, so our "hippiness" is not really a choice. I see some people campaigning against European green energy or the renewables and it doesn't make sense whatsoever unless you are aligned with Russia or USA.
> The coolest thing about solar is that the devices to capture the fusion energy in the skies are manufactured, unlike other options being built. I'm not anti-nuclear but I don't like its extremely long building phase.
What do you do during a windless cloudy day or (any) night? No solar, no wind, no nothing. Small clouds, large power fluctuations, and you get grid failures.
Yes, sure, nuclear takes 10 years to build, and 10 years ago, people like you were complaining about the same things, and same for 20 and 30 years ago. If we didn't listen to the "it'll take 10 years..." 10, 20, 30 years ago, we'd have a lot more nuclear power now, that also works at night.
I don't think you will find a day where there is no sun and no wind in all of europe. The costal areas usually gave constant wind and the south constant sun.
And we do have and build much more high voltage transmission lines.
And otherwise there is no technical limit to build lots of rare earth free batteries. Once they are common in allmost every household and once electric cars can be used for that, too, I don't see any technical problem.
It takes time and investment of course. And pragmatism till we are there. I don't like coal plants, but I am not in favor of just shutting them down now.
> I don't think you will find a day where there is no sun and no wind in all of europe.
For the US PJM (US east coast and midwest) and CAISO (California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada) grid areas, total wind power fluctuates over a 4:1 range on a daily basis. Both grids post dashboards where you can see this. Averaging out wind over a large area does not help all that much.
6 replies →
Every night there is no sun, and there are many times where there is not enough wind for all of our needs.
...or we can just build nuclear powerplants, no need for millions of batteries, power at night too, and all it takes is removing a few "greens" from their position of power.
1 reply →
We will take the day off I guess as we run the critical stuff on nuclear. I don't fancy nuclear because it's too involved, takes forever to build, its a big deal, needs long term planning. I also don't believe that there are enough smart and trustworthy people to take care of a nuclear infrastructure that powers the world for generations, disasters will happen. Let's use the quick, simple, safe and unlimited potential. Nuclear has its place for sure though.
Solar efficiency degrades over time. When these sites are no longer economical their owners will turn to bankruptcy, we'll have thousands of hectares of green fields covered in disarrayed broken blue panels, overgrown, unmaintained, a public nuisance of massive proportions in the making.
17 replies →
> What do you do during a windless cloudy day or (any) night? No solar, no wind, no nothing. Small clouds, large power fluctuations, and you get grid failures.
Even when it's cloudy there's still light, it's not as if it's pitch black when there's clouds, what do you think is illuminating everything still?
But efficiency in solar panels needs to increase, which is happening.
> In Europe we don't have much fossil fuels, so our "hippiness" is not really a choice.
We have plenty of oil and gas (normal and fracking). We have just convinced ourselves its better to leave it in the ground and pay foreign countries instead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The energy crisis in Europe is a self-inflicted wound.
I hope someday the word 'crisis' gets a breather. That poor, abused, overworked and misunderstood word :(
Gas price are still twice as high as four years ago. Whole industries are collapsing because electricity is too expensive for factories. Personally, just heating my home has become very expensive.
Europe is deindustrializing. Especially Germany, the EU economic engine, has been hit hard. So yes, the word crisis is used correctly here.
> For instance, BASF, a global chemical giant, recently announced plans to downsize its operations in the country with the reason being unbearably high energy prices in Germany. Now, the company is shifting its focus toward expanding its production efforts in China and the U.S. to access more stable energy costs. Germany’s prime power- the Automotive industry, is also struggling due to immense pressure caused by rising energy costs. A recent study revealed that energy costs for Germany’s automotive sector increased by 20% in 2022 and a similar trend followed in 2023. https://ceinterim.com/deindustrialization-in-germany/
4 replies →
To be fair, keeping your own resources in the ground as long as possible is often the strategically right move if your time horizon is long enough. It means they will still be there when other world regions run out.
One of the benefits of nuclear, it turns out, is it’s less likely to be bomber than panels, batteries, transformers and HVDC cables. I have no doubt that Europe will monoculture its energy balance again. But that also makes it uniquely easy to bully by military threat, overt or covert.
Why would they be less likely to be bombed? Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant got bombed in 2022.
There's no strong deterrent there. These plants don't blow up like nukes, or even Chernobyl. Nuclear disasters require very precise conditions to sustain the chain reaction. Blowing up a reactor with conventional weapons will spread the fuel around, which is a nasty pollution, but localized enough that it's the victim's problem not the aggressor’s problem.
Why do you even mention transformers and cables as an implied alternative to nuclear power plants? Power plants absolutely require power distribution infrastructure, which is vulnerable to attacks.
From the perspective of resiliency against military attacks, solar + batteries seem the best - you can have them distributed without any central point of failure, you can move them, and the deployments can be as large or small as you want.
(BTW, this isn't argument against nuclear energy in general. It's safe, and we should build more of it, and build as much solar as we can, too).
Nuclear plants and their cooling towers tend to be made of reinforced concrete. That makes them harder to bomb. If you want to take out power you bomb the transmission or substations instead as they are far less durable.
I recall hearing in school that 9-11 masterminds had considered planes against nuclear power plants but abandoned it after doing the math and realizing that it would do little damage. Not sure how true that is admittedly.
Solar plants are fairly resilient to bomb damage: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/06/02/ukrainian-solar-plant...
Bombing solar infrastructure works about as well as bombing a farm. Solar is way too cheap to be worth bombing.
That is true, but I'd rather deal with a busted solar farm than a busted nuclear reactor
>In Europe we don't have much fossil fuels, so our "hippiness" is not really a choice
this argument relies on the false-but-widely-held idea that "natural resources" are commercial wealth and if you don't hold them you are poor. Look at Japan, has very limited natural resources and not hippies but has built a world-class economy on knowledge work. Look at resource rich 3rd world countries, why are they poor?
If Europe needs oil, they can buy it, it's completely fungible and sold at auction in huge volumes every day. The reason for the switch to wind and solar is the global warming argument, not the "we don't have our own oil" fallacy.
You chose oil for your example, but what about natural gas? If Europe needs natural gas, they can just buy it… and give money directly to their enemy, Russia. Just buying what you need isn’t without second order effects. The second order effects of solar and energy diversification are more palatable than directly funding an enemy.
“Look at Japan”. Ok, let’s look. They attacked the US in 1941 because of the US oil embargo. Their current situation is predicated on the US continuing to be the world’s policeman, ensuring that shipments get from point A to B. There will come a time when that assumption will not hold.
Things change.
> If Europe needs oil, they can buy it, it's completely fungible and sold at auction in huge volumes every day
That didn't end well when the oil and gas supplier decided to invade Europe. They even run clips showing how Europe will freeze in the winter and be poor if keep supporting the invaded ally.
Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvdBzZVVovc
If EU wasn't heavily invested in green tech and efficiency, the Russians film might have had become a reality.
Just use the fusion in the skies.
Energy independence. The US fought wars for oil before fracking. Supply chains are complex and disruptable. Dependence on Russia for fuel leads to... dependence on Russia. Or Iran. Or Saudi. Whatever country it may be, it's dependence, and dependence can always be weaponized. This is pure geopolitics. "You can just buy oil" is deeply foolish.
We now see it's not sensible to depend on other countries be it for oil, ore, nuclear umbrella or cloud computing providers.
I think we cannot buy oil and gas only from sane countries or we would already.
How can you regain sovereignty? Installing solar and heat pumps is part of this process.
> The reason for the switch to wind and solar is the global warming argument
I hate this argument. Why should one care about global warming in order to switch to solar? It just makes sense economically. Even if you think that the world is flat, solar energy is still cheaper than anything else.
Because it's a fact. When your interlocutor doesn't care about facts there's no particular reason they should care it's cheaper, that's just another fact.
You say "OK, Joe thinks the Earth is flat but he should still use Solar" and Joe doesn't follow. Joe's number one news source is "Jenny Truth Sayer" on TikTok and Jenny just told him that the solar panels attract Venusian Space Clowns, and he has to smash them with a hammer or else his genitals will explode
There are greedy assholes for whom it doesn't matter why the line is going up. But it turns out they don't like wind or solar because they're too democratic. Those assholes are - like most capitalist asshole, used to a system where you own stuff (a mine, a well, a pipeline, a ship) and you get infinite money, but newer systems aren't about owning stuff. You can't own the sunlight, or the wind, well then it's no good is it? The big oil companies stepped back from "We're part of the transition" and doubled down on fossil fuels, because that means more money for them, and if we all die well, too bad.
Because there are uses of fossil fuels where solar won't be cheaper to replace them, but that still must be eliminated to avoid eventual disaster.