this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
611 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3168 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
$60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure... the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.
(I'm using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)
Because grid level power delivery is about FAR more than just raw wattage numbers. Momentum of spinning turbines is extremely important to the grid. The grid relies on generation equipment maintaing an AC frequency of 60 hz or 50hz or whatever a country decides on. Changing loads throughout the day literally add an amount of drag to the entire grid and it can drag the frequency down. The inverse can also happen. If you have fluctuating wind or cloud cover you can bring the whole grid down if you can't instantly spin up other methods to pick up the slack.
reliable consistent power delivery is absolutely critical when it comes to running the grid effectively and that is something that solar and wind are bad at
Ideally we will be able to use those technologies to fill grid level storage (batteries, pumped hydro) to supply 100% of our energy needs in the not too distant future but until then we desperately need large, consistent, clean power generation.
You aren't wrong, but you are assuming that the grid is required. Solar panels can be installed at the point of use, and then the grid doesn't come into it at all.
I agree, but off grid solar requires a lot more panels and personal infrastructure owned by the customer than grid tied solar. and a storage solution for night time and winter and cloudy days.
A typical house isn't going off grid and maintaining a worry free electric schedule without a minimum of 25,000$ of panels, mounts, inverters, batteries, BMS, cabling, installation, and permits.
To be fair, the cost is still less than the amount of time the system will last so economically is can be viable but who has 25,000$ just sitting around...you have to be able to install it yourself to save enough money to really even think about doing it.
I am on your side, but we should be focusing on storage technology right now because solar is honestly really advanced at this point. Once those technologies can work together all the arguments against solar that make sense disappear.
That's the worst way to do solar, though. It doesn't get to take advantage of economies of scale in installation and inverters. Some levelized cost of energy studies put it just as expensive as nuclear.
Solar gets its cheapness when it's in fields or on top of large, flat commercial/industrial buildings.
Do commercial/industrial buildings not require power then?
There's often enough space on those buildings for excess power. Not all those buildings have particularly intensive energy needs. Many are just warehouses.