@MattMastodon @matthewtoad43 @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
This is just the fact: there are, at the current state, only two energy sources that can form the backbone of a decarbonized grid, and they have proved it, hydro and nuclear.
Hydro is not available everywhere, however, as it has really large area demand, and geological requirements.
And I repeat: nuclear /is/ very capable of load following.
And I repeat: batteries at the needed scalability don't exist (yet?).
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
I'm not saying 100% nuclear would be best, but I /know/ that 100% volatiles + storage + transmission are practically impossible.
Up to around 40% volatiles can be compensated by a large grid. The rest can, with current or near-future technology, be nuclear and/or hydro. With middle-future technology, this /might/ be gradually replaced by more volatiles+storage+transmission.
@MattMastodon @matthewtoad43 @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Sorry to interrupt, but nothing about this is »trivial«.
Also, you must compare the complete system. Let's summarize just two options:
- Nuclear power plants, and the grid as is.
- Wind turbines, solar panels, plus a multiple of the current grid, plus hypothetical storage tech none of which has passed the pilot stage yet.
What is your bet? How do you think decarbonization has /already/ been achieved?
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Yes, shipping in general, especially long-distance, is a huge issue. But it is only solvable through economics. A solution must be at least as effective and efficient (from a business perspective) as the current dirty oil burning, /and/ significantly better at something to overcome inertia.
My bet would be #nuclear power for that: already being done for decades (mostly military though), and the environment seems ideal (no cooling issues).
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Without klicking anything, 61 million € is practically nothing, so I do not expect this to be a big, impactful project. It might be a nice little extra income from surplus hydro power (Norway is almost completely running on hydro).
Then looking into the links, this supports just a small fleet of up to 40 ships. Which is good.
I think it can be a good way for this niche, and it might be one little thing less to worry about.
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
A few points to factor in:
- A nuclear power station has a much longer lifetime than batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.
- You need not only the batteries, but also the panels/turbines to fill them.
- Conversion and storage losses are significant. Attached is a rough overview for H₂.
- Transmission infrastructure costs to/from individual cars are significant.
- 24 h is not enough by far to balance out usual fluctuations.
⇒ - Backup. Of course, anything inherently CO₂-producing is out for this, and this includes gas, obviously, and biomass (maybe less obviously, but think about it). And that leaves?
So, this is my plan: keep building solar and wind till peak demand is sometimes met, build nuclear to replace all the fossil »backup«.
⇒ - Storage: obviously, we'd want to smoothen out the time dimension as well. This means adding storage that can meet 100% of demand as well (volatile sources frequently drop to 0), and feeding it with enough additional clean sources that it can fill every expected gap (and gap accumulation).
And here I'd like to repeat my point from before: the best (most effective) storage we have right now is pumped hydro, by far. And pumped hydro is not enough, by far.
⇒
⇒ Now the volatile supply line has valleys between the peaks. If you integrate over time and place, the supply line covers about 40% of demand in this situation.
That is /very rough/ and depends on a lot of factors, but my point is the same if it were 30% or 60%: where does the rest come from?
- Transmission: as already mentioned, we know how to transmit electric energy, it's just material and effort. This smoothes out the »place« dimension.
⇒
⇒ (But at least we already have transmission tech, it is now just a question of materials and effort.)
So, assume that we have enough wind and solar that we can regularly produce 100% of demand from them. You can imagine peaks just touching the demand line at top demand.
(You could imagine more than that, but that would mean overbuilding, which hurts the economics quite badly while not making the end result much better.)
⇒
⇒ Aside: the »place« problem is that you can't build solar panels and wind turbines just anywhere, and they need a lot of space. E. g. Germany has now the problem that the wind blows much better in the north, but the industry is more in the south. So, you need a lot more/stronger transmission lines. Same for offshore wind: more wind at sea, but you need a lot of cables.
The more wind and solar you already have, the more the good places are already taken.
⇒
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
There are already single events of more than a few hours where sunshine and wind are lacking. But that is only the immediate perspective; you need to integrate over at least several years to see the longer-term shortages that need to be handled as well. And that is quite obviously much more than a few hours. Therefore, I have some problems regarding such studies as credible.