Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable

[WetEV]

I never said the energy return on those things was bad.
The only renewable energy related thing I can think of with a horrible return is batteries.

Mining companies are expecting to do well under renewable energy mandates.

Batteries don't produce energy, they store it. I've driven about 80k miles with batteries, in three different cars and it has been fun. That's a good return, not a horrible return.

 

[GRA]

I'm all for switching as much as we can as soon as we can, but it's not a realistic option at the moment to provide everything in the manner you suggest, for both cost and scale as well as political reasons.

We can be realistic about the political and psychological factors, in which case we pretty much have to concede that we are doomed. Game Over as of about 20 years ago. If we are going to suggest that we can possibly save ourselves, then we have to drop "realistic" in favor of "possible." Any middle ground approach just pushes the Crash out a very few more years. Or not...

I don't consider nukes a middle ground, they are one zero-emission option which we (in the U.S. and Europe) have abandoned mainly due to unscientific fears, but they can unquestionably provide 100% of our electricity at far lower risk than if we do so with fossil fuels. I consider them an essential way of buying time until we know we can do it all with VR. Given their scale, they can also be built more rapidly (assuming that a lot of the legal delays that they currently face are eliminated, to be sure, which brings politics back in).

They are of course not risk-free, but if we want to get off fossil fuels in the time frame that now appears critical, I see no other choice. We simply can't build PV/wind and the necessary transmission and storage infrastructure etc. fast enough even ignoring cost, not to mention all the industrial uses for which there's currently no substitute for fossil fuels. I'm not likely to be around long enough to see the worst of AGCC, but if the forecasts are accurate, going all out for renewables would require a worldwide commitment on the order of WW2 for 20 years or more, and unless incontrovertible, catastrophic evidence of AGCC appears (say the Greenland Icecap melting in five years), how likely are countries to make that kind of commitment?

 

[LeftieBiker]

You lost me at "unscientific fears." I'm out.

 

[SageBrush]

We simply can't build PV/wind and the necessary transmission and storage infrastructure etc. fast enough

It is much, much cheaper, and much, much faster to to build renewables than nuclear.

On the order of 10:1 for each.

On might thing that the "free market" political party would oppose government shouldering the responsibility for damages but the only thing more amazing than AGW denial is trumper hypocrisy. They seem to go hand in hand.

 

[Oilpan4]

According to Wikipedia maine Yankee nuclear power station cost 1.6 billion (2012) dollars and produced 119 Tera watt hours in 24 years.
Had the reactor core steam pipes not cracked do to faulty welding technique designed around saving time it could have easily ran until now and produced an additional 119 Tera watt hours.
What renewable power technology that can be built almost anywhere can match that?

 

[SageBrush]

Yeah , cheap if you don't mind sub-par work and the government foots the bill for the insurance.

Try something more recent:
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/

$9 Billion spent, and .... nothing to show for it other than years and years wasted ... and of course future litigation and lobbying costs passed on to the consumer. I'll leave it to you to read how much it would have cost "extra" to complete the project, but I'll point out that the project was scrapped because there was ZERO confidence that latest cost increase would be the last -- far from it.
The good news is that they did not irradiate the state and do not have a mountain of radioactive waste. The state electric utility (which covers *some* of the state) does however has a deficit equal to the entire state budget. Trumpers run SC, and they have driven the state into 3rd world status with their nuclear boondoggle and assorted stupidities. Now they are wards of the federal government

This story is not a one-off, it is a perfect example of the state of nuclear. Had the nuclear plant been built without any delays, cost over-runs, mistakes or what have you, it would have cost $4.5 a watt (in 2008 dollars) to build. That would not have included financing or insurance or O+M or radioactive disposal or remediation at plant closure. The thing is though, there are *always* delays, cost over-runs, and safety issues with nuclear. ALWAYS.

Read about the sister Vogtle nuclear plant in GA that is on life-support awaiting a government bail-out. Current estimates (hah!) are $25 Billion for 2.5 GW. That includes free loans, the government paying for insurance, and does not include financing, O+M, waste disposal or site remediation.

What part of any of this are you having trouble understanding ?

 

[Oilpan4]

So no answer just a dodge?

I take it no alternative could be built in 4 years for a few billion dollars and produce power on the scale that nuclear could do back in the 1980s and 1990s.
I like how money is no object for wind and solar but when a nuclear power plant goes over budget now all of a sudden cost is important.

Nuclear builds only cost about as much as thermal solar plants do but they are more likely to work at night and produce rated capacity. The problems for the new plants appear to be political and not technical.

Wind and solar only appear to be cheap because they ride on the back of natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric.
The cost is going to go up a lot when batteries are included to enable these cheap intermittent sources to make power 24 hours a day. I like how that's conveniently always ignored.

 

[SageBrush]

I like how money is no object for wind and solar but when a nuclear power plant goes over budget now all of a sudden cost is important.

What you call "over budget" is $25 Billion for 2.5 GW to get it built ... and that is only the current estimate. It does not include O+M, the built-in utility investment profit of 10%, the federal loan subsidy, the federal government paying for insurance, the cost of radioactive waste disposal, or the cost of site remediation when the plant closes.

I'll guess the problem here is arithmetic again. $25 Billion is $10 a watt -- and that does not include all the costs and subsidies I mentioned, or more cost over-runs.

You have said before that you are willing to pollute the planet and drive it into AGW disaster to the get the "cheapest" electricity but you support nuclear at 10x of cost of renewables. You are incoherent, even within your own insane world-view.

 

[Oilpan4]

Still no answer and still dodging the question.

 

[RonDawg]

You lost me at "unscientific fears." I'm out.

I agree.

The thing with nuclear power is despite all the safeguards you put in, if it goes wrong, it goes VERY wrong. And the effects will last years...half-lifes. There's a region of northeast Japan that will be basically uninhabitable for generations because the "one in a million" chance scenario actually did happen.

 

[SageBrush]

The problems for the new plants appear to be political and not technical.

In Trump-land, SC ? In Trump-land, GA ? That is a pathetic argument even by your standards.

The cost is going to go up a lot when batteries are included to enable these cheap intermittent sources to make power 24 hours a day..

Prove it, and provide numbers. Not numbers from your imagination but IRPs from utilities that are installing wind+PV+battery to replace retiring nuclear and expensive fossils. You can start with Xcel and PNM, two utilities that provide the lion's share of electricity in NM.

 

[Oilpan4]

So I take it no renewable can be built in 4 years for a few billion dollars that can start producing 5 Tera watt hour per year.

The US went around a decade with out building a commercial power plant. If the US went with out building a wind farm for 10 years the first few wind farms would go way over budget.
There didn't seem to be a problem building nuclear plants through the 1970, 1980s and 1990s. But now there is a problem and proves it's a failure? That's probably the weakest argumentyou have ever provided for anything.

The problems for the new plants appear to be political and not technical.

In Trump-land, SC ? In Trump-land, GA ? That is a pathetic argument even by your standards.

The cost is going to go up a lot when batteries are included to enable these cheap intermittent sources to make power 24 hours a day..

Prove it, and provide numbers. Not numbers from your imagination but IRPs from utilities that are installing wind+PV+battery to replace retiring nuclear and expensive fossils. You can start with Xcel and PNM, two utilities that provide the lion's share of electricity in NM.

Right now if tesla made the batteries it would cost about $110,000 per mega watt hour according to the 85 kwh price tesla published to replace that battery.
Tack that on to "cheap solar and wind" to provide 24 hour power and tell me how cheap it is.
Like really tell me. You are obviously the smartest person here by a wide margin. You probably already knew that and the answer.

 

[WetEV]

Right now if tesla made the batteries it would cost about $110,000 per mega watt hour according to the 85 kwh price tesla published to replace that battery.
Tack that on to "cheap solar and wind" to provide 24 hour power and tell me how cheap it is.

What is usage pattern?

Daily cycling, will be fairly cheap. Cost per kWh delivered = $110/(365 days * 10 year working life) = $0.03 per kWh.

Or less, as working life is probably more like 20 years.

Daily cycling storage combined with some geographic diversity should allow for the USA to get to near 80% renewable power. The last 20% will require new technology or nuclear.

 

[Oilpan4]

Right now if tesla made the batteries it would cost about $110,000 per mega watt hour according to the 85 kwh price tesla published to replace that battery.
Tack that on to "cheap solar and wind" to provide 24 hour power and tell me how cheap it is.

What is usage pattern?

Daily cycling, will be fairly cheap. Cost per kWh delivered = $110/(365 days * 10 year working life) = $0.03 per kWh.

Or less, as working life is probably more like 20 years.

Daily cycling storage combined with some geographic diversity should allow for the USA to get to near 80% renewable power. The last 20% will require new technology or nuclear.

Works for me.
I would have to assume the batteries would be used almost daily everywhere.
For battery to be reliable everywhere we would probably need 2 days or more battery capacity because most of the US doesn't have super reliable sun and wind like west texas, and NM.
I'm assuming the current tesla batteries with active thermal management will last at least 10 years before they would need to have some battery capacity added to make up for degradation. Then those oldest batteries would last probably 20 to 25 years before they start failing. As long as the charge to discharge and temperature is maintained for max life.

And then what, in 5 to 10 years the battery price will likely be cut in half?
So it gets even cheaper.
(According to a wired article I read earlier this year)

 

[Oilpan4]

To make a battery power plant for $110,000 per mega watt hour scaled up to let's say provide 400Mw for 20 hours.
We really only want to use 2/3 of the batteries capacity to make that much power and have the battery last over 20 years.
So what we want is to get 8GwH out of this theoretical power plant. We want more like a 12GwH battery.
Thats $1,320,000,000
I'm going to have to say that's a lot of money for a 1 and done until it recharges power plant.
Even when battery prices are cut in half over time, I'm going to have to say that's a lot of money for a 1 and done power plant that will hopefully last 25 years.
I don't think poor NM can afford it.
I'm good with battery power plants as long as I'm not paying for early adopting them.

 

[SageBrush]

Right now if tesla made the batteries it would cost about $110,000 per mega watt hour according to the 85 kwh price tesla published to replace that battery.

You may as well be quoting the cost of Ben & Jerry's Vanilla ice cream per pint in Manhattan when the question is cost of ice per ton in Norway. Read the IRPs of the main electric utilities of NM. Or read the most recent auctions that Xcel has reported to its PUC of clean energy + storage.

However, $110,000 per MWh is dirt cheap. I doubt if that is the Tesla price. Your calc after that is nonsensical. Utility scale storage in conjunction with clean energy is usually designed as a 4 hour per day back-up and a 10 year operation guarantee. The ~ correct arithmetic would be back-up of 365*24*10** kWh for $440, about 0.5 cents per kWh. You may notice that is ~ the same additional charge that long distance sharing will cost per kWh.

In short -- get a clue

**
365 days in a year
24 hours in a day
10 year performance warranty

 

[SageBrush]

I'm good with battery power plants as long as I'm not paying for early adopting them.

The price curve has a beginning.

Lucky that some people realize that pollution has a cost.
Lucky that some people realize that AGW is not a Chinese hoax.

Lucky we are all not all Trumpers, Eh ?

 

[Oilpan4]

I'm good with battery power plants as long as I'm not paying for early adopting them.

The price curve has a beginning.

Lucky that some people realize that pollution has a cost.
Lucky that some people realize that AGW is not a Chinese hoax.

Lucky we are all not all Trumpers, Eh ?

The only person saying anything about AGW being a hoax on here is you.

 

[Oilpan4]

Right now if tesla made the batteries it would cost about $110,000 per mega watt hour according to the 85 kwh price tesla published to replace that battery.

You may as well be quoting the cost of Ben & Jerry's Vanilla ice cream per pint in Manhattan when the question is cost of ice per ton in Norway. Read the IRPs of the main electric utilities of NM. Or read the most recent auctions that Xcel has reported to its PUC of clean energy + storage.

However, $110,000 per MWh is dirt cheap. I doubt if that is the Tesla price. Your calc after that is nonsensical. Utility scale storage in conjunction with clean energy is usually designed as a 4 hour per day back-up and a 10 year operation guarantee. The ~ correct arithmetic would be back-up of 365*24*10** kWh for $440, about 0.5 cents per kWh. You may notice that is ~ the same additional charge that long distance sharing will cost per kWh.

In short -- get a clue

**
365 days in a year
24 hours in a day
10 year performance warranty

That's only your delusional green washing.
The cute little 4 hour battery supply will hopefully be able to send out a warning to peoples phones before it goes off line.
Being able to supply my own water and electricity is looking like the more logical option every day.

 

[Oilpan4]

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122906_could-battery-lawsuits-material-shortages-delay-some-evs

Maybe just forget about grid batteries unless some very cheap battery tech made with unlimited common materials comes out and just stick with putting lithium batteries in stuff that moves.

I read a a lot of mining news and it is true mining investments for base metals, precious metals and energy metals over the last 5 or 6 years has not been that great.

Seems I see at least 2 or 3 articles like this per year.