this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
182 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2539 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So even if we assume it is not economically viable... I would rather not have another few billion tons of CO2 just to save some money.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not economically viable because renewables are drastically cheaper and also far quicker to build out. So if you want to cut CO2, renewables are the way to go.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay and did you add all the extra cost to make that work? Like when talking about nuclear we do not just look at the reactor itself. For example you need lots of storage and distribution to make renewables work.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Then renewables are still a lot cheaper.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah, thanks for that detailed reply, let me try: Nuclear is still a lot cheaper.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is the report where you got that picture from. On page 44 are the assumptions for storage costs: 100 to 400 MWh of storage, assuming they are charged and discharged 315 times per year (so eg. 31'500 MWh storage output per year for 100 MWh capacity). Those do not need to be 100% cycles, but given that a year has hardly more days than 315 and some days even see no production, they need to be cycled pretty much every day the sun is shining. Anyway, what is my point? We need more than a few hours of storage to make it work. But the more storage you have, the less you actually use it, making it disproportionaly more expensive. Note what they say:

Lithium-ion batteries remain the most cost competitive short-term (i.e., 2 – 4-hour) storage technology

We need more than 2 or 4 hours. A single night is already far longer than that. The shorter the storage duration, the cheaper it is. Of course this skewes the numbers. It is like calculating the storage cost of nuclear waste for only 2 years. Of course it looks better.