Compared with gas turbines? The main reason power is supply constrained is that gas turbines are a precision high-tech product that fails catastrophically if you don't build it right and maintain it.
Bloom fuel cells are a plausible alternative, but they are in the process of building out their manufacturing capacity, and operating experience at data center scale hasn't been tested. Bloom's process also involves extremely high temperatures, which could result in uptime and maintenance issues.
Im not a gas booster -- but turbine technology is pretty impressive. Id go with nuclear before gas for sure - especially for these larger long lived sites.
I would say you end up with battery+solar and gas turbine/gensets providing power when solar+batteries cant fill the gap. Its a bit expensive to be adding so many different sources on site to shore up power supply.
FWIW obvious maintenance work required to keep turbines going.
Leadtime for nuclear power, unless you wanna buy a sketchy Russian submarine reactor that's been rusting in an arctic bay, is decades longer than even the supply constrained gas turbines.
I don't know why you think solar needs two forms of back up. Batteries are very reliable.
What are you talking about -- almost no one goes with a mix of energy. It should be renewables + nuclear + storage and were golden. Everyone just goes solar+battery saying thats all we need, it isn't.
And gas/fuel has high functional use as a differentiated energy product - we just don't need to use so much of it -- keep it on the smaller end of the use case spectrum.
Yes the point of batteries is to add backup power when solar goes down - and it does. However the two of them do not get to 4 9's of uptime which is needed for these large data facilities.
Compared with gas turbines? The main reason power is supply constrained is that gas turbines are a precision high-tech product that fails catastrophically if you don't build it right and maintain it.
Bloom fuel cells are a plausible alternative, but they are in the process of building out their manufacturing capacity, and operating experience at data center scale hasn't been tested. Bloom's process also involves extremely high temperatures, which could result in uptime and maintenance issues.
Im not a gas booster -- but turbine technology is pretty impressive. Id go with nuclear before gas for sure - especially for these larger long lived sites.
I would say you end up with battery+solar and gas turbine/gensets providing power when solar+batteries cant fill the gap. Its a bit expensive to be adding so many different sources on site to shore up power supply.
FWIW obvious maintenance work required to keep turbines going.
Leadtime for nuclear power, unless you wanna buy a sketchy Russian submarine reactor that's been rusting in an arctic bay, is decades longer than even the supply constrained gas turbines.
I don't know why you think solar needs two forms of back up. Batteries are very reliable.
Which is why just about everyone is saying that a mix of energy sources, such as combing solar with wind, is a good thing.
What are you talking about -- almost no one goes with a mix of energy. It should be renewables + nuclear + storage and were golden. Everyone just goes solar+battery saying thats all we need, it isn't.
And gas/fuel has high functional use as a differentiated energy product - we just don't need to use so much of it -- keep it on the smaller end of the use case spectrum.
Is the point of the battery not to add 9s with solar?
Yes the point of batteries is to add backup power when solar goes down - and it does. However the two of them do not get to 4 9's of uptime which is needed for these large data facilities.
At least in my personal use - which is admittedly far smaller - I just see the battery as the main source. Solar exists to charge it.
[dead]