Electric cars and the grid..... it has begun.

[DennisCA]

Can you provide links/evidence please?

I am also involved in storage, mostly behind the meter but I do have one grid storage site in my project portfolio, I fail to see how it is a scam? How are they scams?

The ones I'm involved with all charge with renewables then release the energy at times the grid prices are high or when there is a surge in demand. No it isn't cheap but it certainly works. One example is a leisure centre that ran 100% on battery power over the weekend

Basically all the gravity storage solutions are just scams such as the Energy Vault that was recently paraded around. It's a completely unworkable solution once you look into it, it's sole purpose is to attract venture capital, even then their own optimized numbers said sometihng like 400$/kWh. There was recently another similar solution that was completely bonkers unworkable about a huge rock piston, looked like the same kind of scam as the energy vault except even lazier.

Here's a video at least on the energy vault

Battery power based ones are also a type of scam. because they will never ever be able to scale up to national level, there aren't enough resources for that with current tech for it ever to become a large scale tech. They'll produde small scale demos like running a leisure center over a weekend. Yeah sure but that is not comparable to being able to store the needs of a nation for days or even weeks. That's just so far out there it might as well be sci-fi.

 

[GRW]

I don't know what studies those are, but I've seen lots of bad studies with doubtful claims coming from renewables proponents over the years which makes me not trust anything they say. I just find them dishonest as a whole. They certainly do a lot of attacking of nuclear power. And renewables are currently being built with the idea that they will replace systems like nuclear.

Again it comes down to pure fantasy thinking on the renewables side, they are pinning their hopes on some future tech that might never materialize. This is incredibly irresponsible when we are having a global climate crisis.

What is desperately needed is more nuclear because renewables are failing to deliver what was promised. We have working tech that's also the most enviromentally friendly option. But we are ignoring it for irrational reasons, that's the long and short of it as I see it.

Certainly renewables AND nuclear should be paired, but lets be frank, the renewable proponents have since day 1 seen renewables as a way to attack and replace nuclear power, not to work with it.

Part of the issue has to be with the manner in which these Renewables schemes have been mis-managed as well.
The FIT bribes and Govt (Taxpayer) subsidies for all these new "Green" initiatives (inc the EV) - are an open invitation to attract every "get rich quick" ruthless Trader to be the prevalent early adopters. These kind are never professionals in the industry, but are the type with am eye for a fast buck - the "smash & grab, then leg it" merchants (the polite term is Entrepreneur).

Just how many fly-by-night Solar Co's popped up overnight when the Solar Scheme was launched? Hundreds. Every homeowner in the land was barraged with cold-calls of every kind, promised the earth and pestered to have an array plonked on their roof.

Just where are all those Co's now? Gone.
Every new poorly-considered "Green" scheme, pushing systems that just don't stand on their own merits - just attracts more get-rich-quick Cowboys - and every single time the taxpayer picks up the tab.

 

[Kayos]

Basically all the gravity storage solutions are just scams such as the Energy Vault that was recently paraded around. It's a completely unworkable solution once you look into it, it's sole purpose is to attract venture capital, even then their own optimized numbers said sometihng like 400$/kWh. There was recently another similar solution that was completely bonkers unworkable about a huge rock piston, looked like the same kind of scam as the energy vault except even lazier.

Battery power based ones are also a type of scam. because they will never ever be able to scale up to national level, there aren't enough resources for that with current tech for it ever to become a large scale tech. They'll produde small scale demos like running a leisure center over a weekend. Yeah sure but that is not comparable to being able to store the needs of a nation for days or even weeks. That's just so far out there it might as well be sci-fi.

But storage has never been about a national level, hence the majority of it being behind the meter, as in for use by the person who owns the battery.

Also powering a leisure centre for a weekend is not a small scale demo. It is actually a UK and possibly world first. Once the data is confirmed details will be published

 

[daleyd]

I don't know what studies those are, but I've seen lots of bad studies with doubtful claims coming from renewables proponents over the years which makes me not trust anything they say. I just find them dishonest as a whole. They certainly do a lot of attacking of nuclear power. And renewables are currently being built with the idea that they will replace systems like nuclear.

Again it comes down to pure fantasy thinking on the renewables side, they are pinning their hopes on some future tech that might never materialize. This is incredibly irresponsible when we are having a global climate crisis.

What is desperately needed is more nuclear because renewables are failing to deliver what was promised. We have working tech that's also the most enviromentally friendly option. But we are ignoring it for irrational reasons, that's the long and short of it as I see it.

Certainly renewables AND nuclear should be paired, but lets be frank, the renewable proponents have since day 1 seen renewables as a way to attack and replace nuclear power, not to work with it.

I’m not arguing that we don’t need a bit more nuclear - but given that there seems to be a pressing need then given the long lead times and general lack of ability to build new nuclear in the numbers required in a short timeframe then nuclear isn’t going to be the magic bullet that some seem to think. We certainly need more, but also more of other stuff too.

And if you think that only the renewable sector pushes out disinformation then you might be in for a shock. Nuclear and oil/gas have their own propaganda, but apparently they are to be trusted implicitly? Nah…I’ve done enough work in both sectors to know that’s not true.

 

[GRW]

But storage has never been about a national level, hence the majority of it being behind the meter, as in for use by the person who owns the battery.

Also powering a leisure centre for a weekend is not a small scale demo. It is actually a UK and possibly world first. Once the data is confirmed details will be published

Thing is.... the true test of all this stuff - is Time. In the short-term (& whe it's being monitored for feasibility) is when it'll perform as well as its ever going to - and will look profitable.
The equipment is new.
It's not attracting high mtce or repair costs.
The battery pack will/should last long enough to not cost anything (hopefully the inverters also).
The big question - is how it fares as time goes on. Failed inverters, failed cells/packs, failed controllers or panels in the medium to long-term.... that's when we'll truly see what the true cost is.
(Again, I've been to quite a lot of Water Board Sites/Council buildings where new technologies have been adopted... and its not unusual for the site Mtce to tell us that they have zero support for systems because the installer is no longer trading).

 

[DennisCA]

Frankly that it takes time to build nuclear only shows that its urgent to start as soon as possible. But it's no longer than the projected times I've seen to develop off-shore wind plants, which where I live are starting to be the only places left you can build on. So there are no quick fixes out of this.

National grid level energy storage is absolutely 100% needed for renewables to work without nuclear as baseload. And let me say that putting a smaller battery bank in every house is functionally equivalent to that, but let me also say that such a mass-rollout is simply not gonna be possible to do.

 

[minimutly]

I wouldn't like to debate a claim I never made. I made a claim that a lot of grid storage projects are scams, which is certainly true.

Hang on a minute here now. Pumped storage was being built 50 years ago paid for by CEGB to reduce the need to keep coal fired stations running to "fill in" the demand induced grid dips. They are still being built, for the same reason. You say this is a scam? BTW these are generally massive projects, requiring substantial capital, with long payback times, but obviously worth building. I fail to see how multi site smaller scale storage schemes are less viable, if enough exist?

 

[DennisCA]

I never claimed all grid storage is a scam. By pumped storage I assume you mean making artificial lakes and the like to run hydro stations, that's certainly one of the functional methods, but which has limitations, it can't be built everywhere and required pre-existing conditions that are suitable.

Multi site small scale storage though, nope, because you simply cannot build enough of them. Even if you could, it would be a monumental waste of resources. It's just a non starter barring a completely new technology for energy storage whose density is miles ahead of anything today.

 

[daleyd]

Frankly that it takes time to build nuclear only shows that its urgent to start as soon as possible. But it's no longer than the projected times I've seen to develop off-shore wind plants, which where I live are starting to be the only places left you can build on. So there are no quick fixes out of this.

National grid level energy storage is absolutely 100% needed for renewables to work without nuclear as baseload. And let me say that putting a smaller battery bank in every house is functionally equivalent to that, but let me also say that such a mass-rollout is simply not gonna be possible to do.

I assume you will be familiar with Olkiluto 3 - started build in 2005, supposed to be online 2010 and has just last year started producing power? Nearly 3 times over budget and well over due. See also flammanville and hinckley c. So I'm really not sure that times are comparable, given a sizeable offshore wind farm near me was built in 3 years.

I'm not disagreeing for the need for more nuclear despite this, but to dismiss everything else as junk is simply wrong, we need a mix of energy production of which renewables will have to play a part. Some will be dead ends, some might lead to other technologies, but it seems to me that doing nothing, or relying on nuclear to come to our rescue, isn't going to be the best option.

 

[DennisCA]

And olkiluoto 3 is still the best damn thing we've ever done this side of the millenium and we urgently need more of them. It's test out put alone kept our electricity bills down by 30% in spring of 2022.

The timeframes for an off shore wind farm where calculated to be over a decade and that's how long it's expected to take to build the GW scale one they got planned here.

There are simply no options that are workable as alternatives to nuclear and there won't be. OL3 and Hinckley is not a rule either, reactors have and are being built faster. There are no set time frames. We need both nuclear and renewables to make it!

 

[DennisCA]

I'm dismissing the idea that nuclear can be set aside in favour of renewables. I am not saying renewables are junk period. Both are needed and fast.

 

[daleyd]

I'm dismissing the idea that nuclear can be set aside in favour of renewables. I am not saying renewables are junk period. Both are needed and fast.

I think we probably actually agree then....though in truth nuclear hasn't been set aside because of renewables, rather it was tossed to the side in the 80s/90s as it was (still is) massively expensive and gas was touted as the cheap alternative - which it was for the last 30 years.

Making renewables a scapegoat for nuclear demise I think is a bit of a false flag - it was already on the scrapheap long before renewables became a thing.

 

[DennisCA]

Massively expensive to build, but once going it produces cheap power for decades. I live in Finland and here in the nordic countries we had some of the cheapest electricity in the world, and it was produced by a combination of nuclear and hydro. Once Germany and Sweden started shutting down reactors (once built by the state in Sweden and quickly), prices across europe have risen by seveal hundred percent, even before the russian war on Ukraine.

Nuclears problem is first and foremost the perceptional one. The second problem is that it's not market friendly, it requires quarter-century thinking or longer, not quarterly thinking. But then, I am for nationalizing energy production anyway and buidling energy production based on the needs of the nation as well as supplying people with cheap, abundant power (like we used to), not to make a profit and send that to some tax haven.

I agree that nuclear is in a difficult spot in a privatized electricity market. You can IMO pin a lot of OL3s problems on that, profit motivated subcontractors skimping on certain things, hiring low skilled labour, having to redo said shoddy work more than once...

 

[daleyd]

I think your right in that it demands national thinking, and not be at the hands of private companies. The fact that about the only company building them (EDF) are all but a french nationalised company in name is a good indicator.

Going back to the first/second generation nuclear - it wouldn’t have even got off the ground had the entire country not underwritten the development costs - just not possible with a private company.

Nuclear seems to have a bathtub curve of costs - expensive to build, fairly cheap when running then expensive again to decommission and deal with the waste. This is the sting in the tail for it, and needs to be factored in.

I’m far from anti nuclear but in reality it’s still not fulfilled it’s promise from the dawn of nuclear power in the 1950’s when it looked like it would be the answer to all our problems - it comes with too much baggage and at a high cost - but it’s certainly needed despite all that…

 

[DennisCA]

Nuclear waste decomissioning is always factored into the cost and environmental analysies of nuclear so that's already done.

The common perception of nuclear waste and relative danger is also one where the public simply has no idea at all of the realities of the situation. Besides, it can be reused over and over again. Nuclear waste is one of the pros of nuclear power as I see it. Extremely compact and we know how to safely deal with it. Unlike so much other conventional waste.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550148385931513856

 

[fizzy]

Can you provide links/evidence please?

I am also involved in storage, mostly behind the meter but I do have one grid storage site in my project portfolio, I fail to see how it is a scam? How are they scams?

The ones I'm involved with all charge with renewables then release the energy at times the grid prices are high or when there is a surge in demand. No it isn't cheap but it certainly works. One example is a leisure centre that ran 100% on battery power over the weekend

It isn't a scam.
But the costs are so high.
It's reasons like this our electricity is so flipping expensive.
To get Britain through a winter wind lull you would need 100 years of World battery production. Just imagine the cost.

 

[daleyd]

Nuclear waste decomissioning is always factored into the cost and environmental analysies of nuclear so that's already done.

The common perception of nuclear waste and relative danger is also one where the public simply has no idea at all of the realities of the situation.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550148385931513856

Luckily I have worked with some projects dealing with some nasty nuclear waste that was left from the 1960/70s and don’t have to rely on public perception, I know the first hand realities of it (spoiler alert, it’s nothing like that Twitter post…)

Trawsfynydd which is near where I live will take another 70 years to fully decommission and it’s already been shut down for 30 years.

Like i said, I’m not anti nuclear, the industry actually pays a fair bit of my wages, but we need to be realistic about its downsides - not rely on pro nuclear Twitter accounts that are about as far from the reality that I see as you can get. That’s as bad as believing the renewables sector…

 

[DennisCA]

Here's some numbers on the feasiblity of large scale energy storage on the scales we would need

Energy storage: Analysing feasibility of various grid scale options

How much grid energy storage do we need to smooth out the fluctuations inherent in weather dependent renewables and how much will it cost?

www.nsenergybusiness.com

And what about Li-ion batteries, which are enjoying increasing market penetration? In 2017, at Hornsdale, SE Australia, Tesla built what was at the time the largest Li-ion battery in the world. The initial scheme was rated at 100 MW with 129 MWh of storage and cost A$90 million (US$68 million). This works out at US$527/kWh. To provide 2.1 TWh of storage would require 16 279 Hornsdale-scale batteries, costing a notional US$ 1.1 trillion at 2017 prices.

To boot I don't think there's enough material to make all that.

 

[DennisCA]

Luckily I have worked with some projects dealing with some nasty nuclear waste that was left from the 1960/70s and don’t have to rely on public perception, I know the first hand realities of it (spoiler alert, it’s nothing like that Twitter post…)

Trawsfynydd which is near where I live will take another 70 years to fully decommission and it’s already been shut down for 30 years.

Like i said, I’m not anti nuclear, the industry actually pays a fair bit of my wages, but we need to be realistic about its downsides - not rely on pro nuclear Twitter accounts that are about as far from the reality that I see as you can get. That’s as bad as believing the renewables sector…

Give some specifics as to what this bad thing is. So far nothing posted in her thread has been shown to be incorrect,

 

[slim_boy_fat]

you just add more of them to make up for that

Fine, if you have space.....