Just imagine the amount of battery storage it would take take to get the E * (Wind graph + Solar graph) = Demand graph. Where E would be the necessary Expansion in Wind + Solar generation. Looking at the graph Wind averages at about 50GW. Solar averages about 15GW. So Wind +Solar averages total to 65GW. With avg demand about 320GW over those 3 months in 2022. So you would have to expand total wind & solar by 5X current. And iron out all those fluctuations to match the demand graph with battery storage.
For rudimentary 24hr storage, looks like you would need ~30GW x5, x24hr = 3.6 TWh storage for the Solar. ~20GW x5 x24hr = 2.4 TWh storage for the Wind. So total 6.0 TWh storage just to smooth the shape of the daily wind/solar variation to approx match the demand curve. That's double the optimistically projected 2030 total World battery production, most of which will be needed just to meet BEV production. And that's assuming the grid can interchange wind & solar between far flung countries without a massive expansion and massive overbuild. It can't. And those batteries will have to be replaced every 5-10yrs along with the wind turbines every 10-20yrs and the solar PV every 15-30yrs.
And as you can see on the graph the wind primary cycling looks to be about 3 days. So 1 day storage won't cut it. With Wind + Solar being terrible from 11/28 to 12/09. And of course you see large monthly variations as well. Undoubtedly large seasonal variations as well, not visible on these 3 month graphs.
Obviously a rational prioritizing of battery production for the most effective uses would make the most sense. And the most effective & economical use of large storage batteries are for large transport: trucks, trains, heavy equipment, LRTs, Buses and Ferries. A completely backward set of priorities are being instituted by the morons who are managing our energy supplies.
At 6TWh & a good price of utility storage of $250/kwh = $1.5T. 320GW of Nuclear @ $4.7B/GWe = $1.5T. No storage needed. No massive grid expansion/overbuild needed. No need to buy & maintain 330GWavg of Wind + Solar which would also cost ~$1.5T, but spent every ~15yrs not every ~60yrs. And the $1.5T for batteries spent every ~7yrs. So conclusion, Nuclear would do the job far cheaper, ~$1.5T vs >$4.5T for the Wind + Solar incl grid upgrades. Add additional present values of ~$9T for the battery replacements and $4T for the wind/solar replacements over 60yrs. That means over 60yrs the capital cost of the Nuclear method would be ~$1.5T vs ~$18T for the Wind/Solar/battery method. Keeping in mind that the wind/solar/battery method would not work, not even close, as I explained above. Whereas the nuclear method would work.
And there is a considerable opportunity cost wasting batteries on uneconomical wind & solar buffering vs the very economical, cost & diesel fuel saving of using the batteries instead for heavy transport: truck, rail, heavy equipment, bus, LRT, ferries. You can expect ~$70k/yr/MWh of battery storage. So 6.0TWh of solar/wind 24hr battery storage instead used for heavy transport applications would save ~$420B/yr in diesel fuel costs, more using EU fuel prices. And a considerable reduction in pollutants and GHG emissions, which the EU claims to care so much about.
Over 60yrs that would be an additional opportunity cost of $25T. So now we are looking at $25T +$18T = $43T for the wind/solar/battery method vs $1.5T for the nuclear method over a 60yr period. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which method makes the most sense, especially since the wind/solar/battery method would not work for reasons I mentioned and many others, most particularly EROI constraints.
Dec 10, 2022·edited Dec 10, 2022Liked by B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡
Wind, solar, batteries are similar to forcing upon society a broken window theory of economic stimulation which results in buying items that a market would reject vs buying what the market deems worthwhile. Both ways create economic activity. One has marginal utility. You can easily figure out which is which.
As for nuclear having no constituency, roads, bridges, sewer systems are different than "power/heat" but somewhat similar. Civilization needs them, and we build them and prosper. Imagine if we "nuked" up and burned nuclear fuel to 90%+ consumption, while creating electricity and heat to do other things. Yoda would say, prosper you will. Then we will be able to allocate capital to endeavors which actually might encourage constituents to come forth.
Can we just build a separate grid for intermittent sources, and allow those who want to use them can? (oh and force the Canadian Federal Parliament to only use that grid)
Just imagine the amount of battery storage it would take take to get the E * (Wind graph + Solar graph) = Demand graph. Where E would be the necessary Expansion in Wind + Solar generation. Looking at the graph Wind averages at about 50GW. Solar averages about 15GW. So Wind +Solar averages total to 65GW. With avg demand about 320GW over those 3 months in 2022. So you would have to expand total wind & solar by 5X current. And iron out all those fluctuations to match the demand graph with battery storage.
For rudimentary 24hr storage, looks like you would need ~30GW x5, x24hr = 3.6 TWh storage for the Solar. ~20GW x5 x24hr = 2.4 TWh storage for the Wind. So total 6.0 TWh storage just to smooth the shape of the daily wind/solar variation to approx match the demand curve. That's double the optimistically projected 2030 total World battery production, most of which will be needed just to meet BEV production. And that's assuming the grid can interchange wind & solar between far flung countries without a massive expansion and massive overbuild. It can't. And those batteries will have to be replaced every 5-10yrs along with the wind turbines every 10-20yrs and the solar PV every 15-30yrs.
And as you can see on the graph the wind primary cycling looks to be about 3 days. So 1 day storage won't cut it. With Wind + Solar being terrible from 11/28 to 12/09. And of course you see large monthly variations as well. Undoubtedly large seasonal variations as well, not visible on these 3 month graphs.
Obviously a rational prioritizing of battery production for the most effective uses would make the most sense. And the most effective & economical use of large storage batteries are for large transport: trucks, trains, heavy equipment, LRTs, Buses and Ferries. A completely backward set of priorities are being instituted by the morons who are managing our energy supplies.
At 6TWh & a good price of utility storage of $250/kwh = $1.5T. 320GW of Nuclear @ $4.7B/GWe = $1.5T. No storage needed. No massive grid expansion/overbuild needed. No need to buy & maintain 330GWavg of Wind + Solar which would also cost ~$1.5T, but spent every ~15yrs not every ~60yrs. And the $1.5T for batteries spent every ~7yrs. So conclusion, Nuclear would do the job far cheaper, ~$1.5T vs >$4.5T for the Wind + Solar incl grid upgrades. Add additional present values of ~$9T for the battery replacements and $4T for the wind/solar replacements over 60yrs. That means over 60yrs the capital cost of the Nuclear method would be ~$1.5T vs ~$18T for the Wind/Solar/battery method. Keeping in mind that the wind/solar/battery method would not work, not even close, as I explained above. Whereas the nuclear method would work.
And there is a considerable opportunity cost wasting batteries on uneconomical wind & solar buffering vs the very economical, cost & diesel fuel saving of using the batteries instead for heavy transport: truck, rail, heavy equipment, bus, LRT, ferries. You can expect ~$70k/yr/MWh of battery storage. So 6.0TWh of solar/wind 24hr battery storage instead used for heavy transport applications would save ~$420B/yr in diesel fuel costs, more using EU fuel prices. And a considerable reduction in pollutants and GHG emissions, which the EU claims to care so much about.
Over 60yrs that would be an additional opportunity cost of $25T. So now we are looking at $25T +$18T = $43T for the wind/solar/battery method vs $1.5T for the nuclear method over a 60yr period. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which method makes the most sense, especially since the wind/solar/battery method would not work for reasons I mentioned and many others, most particularly EROI constraints.
Wind, solar, batteries are similar to forcing upon society a broken window theory of economic stimulation which results in buying items that a market would reject vs buying what the market deems worthwhile. Both ways create economic activity. One has marginal utility. You can easily figure out which is which.
As for nuclear having no constituency, roads, bridges, sewer systems are different than "power/heat" but somewhat similar. Civilization needs them, and we build them and prosper. Imagine if we "nuked" up and burned nuclear fuel to 90%+ consumption, while creating electricity and heat to do other things. Yoda would say, prosper you will. Then we will be able to allocate capital to endeavors which actually might encourage constituents to come forth.
Can we just build a separate grid for intermittent sources, and allow those who want to use them can? (oh and force the Canadian Federal Parliament to only use that grid)