[HN Gopher] US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds ___________________________________________________________________ US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds Author : epistasis Score : 75 points Date : 2022-11-18 21:12 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.utilitydive.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.utilitydive.com) | gregwebs wrote: | We can have 100% clean energy by 2035 if we assume the US is | China and the state can build whatever it wants despite any local | objections. And assume we increase battery supply by 40x (even | though lithium price is going up dramatically now). And assume | that clean power is actually 100% clean. | | It's good to have a vision for clean energy though that is shared | with the country that we start working towards. I can see the | benefit of not letting reality weight down an initial brainstorm | of that. Hopefully we can come up with a realistic vision as a | next step. | epistasis wrote: | A clean power grid means cheaper power. And the faster we push | towards that future, the more money we save. | | Every day of delay, every bit of FUD about renewables, only | serves to keep our energy costs higher, and make our future CO2 | cleanup problem harder. | | The future for energy is cheap and clean, and the major | roadblock are the people who profit from expensive and dirty | electricity. | davidw wrote: | > local objections | | That's a big component of all this. NIMBYism in this country is | becoming a big problem in a lot of ways. | | Want to build a dense, mixed use development that is less | carbon-intensive than single family suburbia? NIMBYs oppose it. | | Build a transmission line from your green energy source? | NIMBYs, again! | | Build a solar farm? NIMBYs will try and block it. | BitwiseFool wrote: | Our local library wanted to put in an automated drop-off bin | that patrons could drive up to and return books into. It was | bitterly contested because the adjacent home owners | association was worried about the increased noise and | traffic. Keep in mind they were already living next to this | library and it already had a parking lot. The city paid to | construct a high wall as a compromise. It wasn't terribly | expensive, but it wasn't cheap either. | | I really do think there is such a thing as "over | democratizing" our development process. Sometimes you really | do just need to tell someone "this is getting built" and they | can get bent if they don't like it. | epistasis wrote: | Agreed 100%. You may like this article, that has academic | research to back up your thoughts-- Not Everyone Should | Have a Say; To speed up permitting for energy projects, | we'll need to rethink community input: | | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/environme | n... | | This sort of "participatory democracy," where the most | motivated can dominate those with less time, can be traced | back to the New Left, which was criticized by social | democrats at the time. | | https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-day-in-the-life- | of... | | And it goes back further to the 30-40s where communists | would drag out meetings late into the night in order to | thin out the crowd, and then wait until they had a majority | for a vote. | anigbrowl wrote: | And if they don't exist, they can be manufactured quite | cheaply. | Schroedingersat wrote: | If by NIMBYs you mean paid actors attending council meetings | and incredibly loud reactionaries from other places, then | yeah. | | There aren't that many actual NIMBYs for this shit. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > If by NIMBYs you mean paid actors attending council | meetings | | Exactly, most anti-renewable objections are outright fraud | by the oil companies, it is groups like 'Citizens for | responsible solar' that are recieve fossil fuel donations | through shell companies. Theu go and complain that a solar | farm will spoint the veiw on somw derelic wasteland and | robbing locals of job opportunities ities. There isnt a | single local person in those groups. | bushbaba wrote: | Lithium price declined recently due to over supply. | | The US can do this without objection by declaring a state of | emergency. We've done it before and we can do it again | milsorgen wrote: | That's a huge problem, you think that's a viable way to get | things done and I don't fault you as I am sure you truly | believe it's an emergency. However ,I don't see things as | being that dire and instead I see your state of emergency | being an act of authoritarianism. | treeman79 wrote: | Much is easier is to simply ban anything not labeled clean. | Redefine things to clean when power grids fail. | | Or just let millions suffer insane prices. | | Helping people rarely a priority. | kornhole wrote: | And if Americans simplify their lives and stop using so much | energy. | lost_tourist wrote: | don't forget where the vast majority of the solar, wind, and | battery tech is currently built... and we're going to trust the | source completely as we transition? I don't see that happening. | Also storage simply isn't ready. Until they can all store 2-5 | days of power at a generating facility you're living in a pipe | dream to claim "reliable power". Over 200 people in Texas died | because of a shitty design during the 2021 arctic blast. | Imagine 10x of that because of unreliable sources on a regular | basis if we just assume everything will just be okay. | roenxi wrote: | You left out an important step - assuming that all the planning | and modelling has been done correctly in and doesn't turn out | to be politically motivated, have mistakes or miss unknown | unknowns. | | Reconstituting all of society's energy consumption is a large | project with a lot of technical uncertainties that will be | discovered along the way. These sort of forecasts routinely | turns out to be very wrong. Centrally planned economies often | look like they are about to power ahead when the plans are | still on paper. It is only when people start starving that | there is the "oh, the plan wasn't actually very good" moment | and/or crackdown to cover up the disaster depending on how | authoritarian the government has gotten. | epistasis wrote: | There is clear political motivation in those who oppose the | energy transition. Despite hundreds upon hundreds of papers | on 100% clean energy electricity grids, they are produced by | scientists that tend to follow the data rather than use data | to justify their politics. There are a few counter examples | (perhaps Marc Jacobs?) but there are so many other modelers | coming to the same conclusion as DOE here, and nobody has | seriously refuted these models in any way. | verdverm wrote: | What is the plan for revamping all the residential units that | have non-electrical heating in the parts of the country which | have winter? | acdha wrote: | We switched to a heat pump a couple years ago. It soaks up all | but the coldest (5-15deg) days in winter (when the resistive | heater kicks in as well) and uses only a little more energy | than our old gas system's fans did. It's way more efficient in | the summer than our old AC was so our annual usage actually | went down and we have less maintenance. | | Over the course of the year, our entire HVAC load is roughly | what our modest solar setup produces. Obviously there are | distribution issues, which is why we buy wind-generated | electricity, but this is something we can do now and I'm quite | confident the thousands of engineers working in the space will | improve as it becomes our generation's Apollo project. | epistasis wrote: | Heat pumps! | | They work great on cold weather now, as long as you can find a | competent HVAC contractor. HVAC folks tend to not like new | tech, though, so it's hard to find one. | mionhe wrote: | At the beginning of the article is says: | | "But it does not explain how adequate land to reach a 90% clean | electricity penetration can be acquired or how reliability will | be protected beyond that 90% penetration, stakeholders | acknowledged." | | I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they | have no idea how to solve yet. | epistasis wrote: | These are roadmaps about how to get somewhere, but the map is | not the terrain, and there are a few parts that are known to | only be 90% mapped. That doesn't say that the 10% unmapped | contains an impassable cliff or easily crossable plains, but we | will likely find out. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they | have no idea how to solve yet_ | | The purpose of the study [1] was to explore what a realistic | solution would look like. Then you can work backwards and | identify roadblocks. For example, if land acquisition is really | the sole bottleneck, there are a myriad of legislative | solutions that could address it. | | [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/nrel-study- | identifies-o... | bjt2n3904 wrote: | You'd think what they want is a solution to switch over to | renewable energy sources that can meet or exceed current | demands at comparative costs. | | No, they just want to get rid of fossil fuels. It doesn't | matter if the new system can meet the demand at all, or how | much it will cost. | | Look at California. Banning lawn mowers and ICE cars. Their | power grid can't even support EV charging, and they're sending | out notices asking people to charge their cars at off hours. | | It doesn't have to work. It just has to disrupt oil at any | cost, even if the cost is human suffering. | epistasis wrote: | That does not represent anything in the article. | | > Their power grid can't even support EV charging, | | This is categorically false, and a ridiculous thing to say. | infamouscow wrote: | > The California Independent System Operator, which manages | the state's power grid, sent a Flex Alert asking all | residents to voluntarily reduce their electricity use | between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday and | warned that more alerts were possible through the Labor Day | weekend. | | > A spokeswoman for the governor, Erin Mellon, said that | the request to avoid charging electrical vehicles has been | misrepresented by critics of California's efforts to curb | emissions. | | > "We're not saying don't charge them," she said. "We're | just saying don't charge them between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m." | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat- | wave-f... | bryanlarsen wrote: | Air conditioners were the problem, not EV's. | epistasis wrote: | > We're not saying don't charge them," she said. "We're | just saying don't charge them between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m." | | Exactly. During the worst, off the charts weather event | ever experienced, with statewide heat never seen before, | there were a few hours where people were asked to not use | much energy, but they still had plenty of energy to | charge cars. | acdha wrote: | That's peak air conditioning load, and it nicely | disproves the claim you're defending: most cars charge | aren't plugged in at peak commuting time but they'll | charge just fine in the middle of the day when solar | production is maximized or at night when the grid has | plenty of excess capacity after AC demand has dropped | significantly. | rllearneratwork wrote: | "Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this | is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for | nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable | source of 0-emission power. | | France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now. | carabiner wrote: | China started building 6 new nuclear plants this year: | https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-greenlights-6-... | | I guess just like high speed rail, China will leave the US in | the dust. | rllearneratwork wrote: | China is also where most of the solar panels are built | epistasis wrote: | If we were to start that now, it would add only 1% generation | capacity, and that's assuming that all projects finish within | 13 years (unlikely) and that none of the construction | projects are abandoned as unfinishable in any way that makes | financial sense (which happened to 50% of the reactors | started in the US in the 2000s). | | There's an assumption that we can simply rebuild what we | built in the past, but technology has changed quite a bit, | construction costs have risen quite a bit, and the lessons we | have learned from prior reactors means that we dont want to | build the prior designs. | | Nuclear is a technology without a solid track record, and | which has failed in the US, and in France, and in Finland. In | these latter examples, we can't blame regulations or public | support. Personally, my hypothesis is that construction | productivity has been so stagnant compared to manufacturing | productivity growth, that nuclear no longer makes sense for | advanced economies. Economies at earlier stages of | development with lower labor productivity and therefore lower | labor costs, may be able to build nuclear cost-effectively. | roenxi wrote: | > ... and in France, and in Finland ... | | We might be about to discover that every power policy in | Europe has failed, there are a lot of people hoping for a | warm winter. I'd be very nervous if their fossil fuel, | nuclear, renewable or gas policies were being adopted where | I live. There is a serial problem in the west where people | aren't taking energy security seriously. If we were, we'd | have been building nuclear reactors 13 years ago and we'd | be building them now for 13 years in the future. | | For this comment, I also looked up the Texas thing [0] from | last year to see if there was a solid consensus on what | happened yet RE wind energy's contribution. I imagine there | must be some Wikipedia edit wars happening over whether to | show the 7th on this graph [1] because it makes it look | like Wind was pretty useless at stopping people from | freezing to death in winter. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_power_crisis.png | plasticchris wrote: | I think the wind turbines froze up: | https://www.newsweek.com/texas-wind-turbines-frozen- | power-wh... | zardo wrote: | And it comes down to, utilities didn't spring for the | cold weather package on their turbines. Effectively | deciding that during extreme cold snaps they would rely | on natural gas power plants. Which were also brought down | by the cold snap. | epistasis wrote: | The plan for Texas was never to rely on wind, and how | could they, wind is not reliable! | | The plan was to rely on natural gas and nuclear, which | are supposed to be reliable, but which were not in Texas. | | Therefore, more solar and storage is probably the best | way for Texans to gain reliability. Texas had the same | problem with frozen gas and nuclear plants a decade | earlier, knew it was a problem, and refused to fix it. | | Decentralization is the only way for people to protect | themselves with grid mismanagement like that, which means | home solar and storage. | melling wrote: | China is planning on building 150 reactors in the next 15 | years | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china- | cli... | | So yes, once again we have to listen to Americans say "it | won't work here" | melling wrote: | That's less than the 20% we get now. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_... | | " for 20% of the nation's total electric energy generation.[3] | In 2018, nuclear comprised nearly 50 percent of US emission- | free energy generation." | | Didn't the United States build 100 nuclear power plants in | about 25 years? | epistasis wrote: | Yes, and the problem was that way too many of them were over | budget and delayed. Even before Three Mile Island, orders for | new nuclear had slowed massively because utilities realized | that ther massive risk for financial boondoggles. | | Those nuclear reactors are now reaching their end of life, | and will need to be phased out. France is realizing what | happens when you don't replace your aging fleet fast enough: | massive unreliability and extended shutdowns for maintenance | and fixing things. | | France also started to build new nuclear in the 2000s, at | Flamanville, but it has been an utter debacle, that's ongoing | to this day. It's to the point that even though the president | has said he's going to order more reactors, it seems unlikely | that many of them will ever complete. | kieranmaine wrote: | The full paragraph is: | | "Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035 under | three of NREL's scenarios but could more than double to 27% | with siting and permitting constraints on generation and | transmission, models found. But that is unlikely because the | cost-effectiveness of investments in wind, solar, storage and | transmission is "clearly" better than that of new nuclear, | NREL's Denholm said." | toomuchtodo wrote: | From reactors built 40 years ago. | | https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclear-edf-idINKBN2A... | sgu999 wrote: | It apparently took about a decade or so to go from planning | to running most of these power plants... | toomuchtodo wrote: | What does the cost of nuclear vs renewables and storage | look like in a decade? The cost curve is what will define | success. Nuclear never gets cheaper. | bryanlarsen wrote: | The US can't build a nuclear plant in 13 years. | newsclues wrote: | The US can build a plant in 13 years. It's a matter of | dedication and willingness. And pissing off a minority of | vocal opponents. | | It takes longer because of the crazy regulations driven in | part by environmentalists who complained about nuclear for | decades while fossil fuels were the only other option. | | But the USA has the resources, skills, technology and money | to do so in a short period of time. | bryanlarsen wrote: | The USA hasn't built a sizable number of reactors for 40 | years. We haven't completely lost the skills, but they've | sure atrophied. | | It takes China 10 years to build a reactor, and they've | built lots of them in the past 20 years and don't have the | regulations you decry. There's no way that the US can do it | in anywhere close to the same time frame that China can. | | It's not just the rules and attitudes about nuclear making | things slow. We can't build a subway station in any sort of | reasonable timeframe or budget. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Aren't NuScale, Rolls Royce, etc planning to deploy | several Gigawatts per year of mini reactors within 5 | years? | | That could be close to 1% of energy usage per year... | toomuchtodo wrote: | They should build it then, and be willing to suffer | financial penalties if they can't. Otherwise they're | making empty promises. Watch what someone does, not what | they say. | epistasis wrote: | None of this is correct, the projects have not been stopped | due to environmentalists, or regulations, or even | willingness. It's just been construction incompetence that | caused billions of dollars to be abandoned on a half- | finished project at VC Summer. And it's the same | construction incompetence that caused Vogtle to be so far | behind schedule and so far over budget. | | If somebody has regulations to change, it's time to propose | them. | sgu999 wrote: | Define now, because there's a now in which we'd really like to | be able to make that much... | zukzuk wrote: | More than half of France's nuclear reactors are out of | commission right now, so for the foreseeable future that "70%" | is more aspirational than anything. | | We are obviously not going to meet all of our energy needs -- | especially for certain high-demand applications -- from solar | and wind alone, but there are some significant advantages to a | decentralized power grid that the pro-nuclear folks don't seem | to factor into their arguments. Assuming we can build it out, a | decentralized grid ought to be much more resilient to the sort | of problems France is facing right now. | S201 wrote: | This is fairly liberal use of the term "decentralized." | Building many more nuclear plants is still "decentralized" in | that some of them can be offline and the system still works. | | Major solar and wind installations are typically concentrated | in similar generating stations as nuclear plants are. Many | more people will likely have solar on their homes, but it's | not like wind and solar is going to lead to a purely | decentralized grid where every small community is generating | their own electricity. There will always be large scale | generating stations for the bulk of grid electricity. | S201 wrote: | Before the typical "nuclear is too expensive/takes too long to | build" comments start: | https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html. Understand why this | is the case and how it's entirely reasonable to fix those | problems with sufficient will & funding. | epistasis wrote: | That page doesn't really describe how to fix the problems. | Nobody really knows, and there's lots of speculations, but if | there was an answer it's easily a trillion dollar reward. | S201 wrote: | > That page doesn't really describe how to fix the | problems. | | Clearly you didn't actually read it because there's a large | section describing exactly how to improve the economics of | nuclear construction: | https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#improving-modern- | nu... | bryanlarsen wrote: | From the conclusion: | | - Multiple hypothetical approaches to reduce nuclear | costs are ongoing. No one knows for sure if any of them | will work, or which one will work best | | And it didn't address the time scale issue at all. | | OTOH, solar power has a 5 decade history of 90% cost | reductions per decade. | 988747 wrote: | Solar power also has a decades long history of only | working during a day. | S201 wrote: | What's your point? The guy doesn't have a few billion to | single handedly throw at the problem to test them out. | There are feasible solutions to make it less expensive, | whether or not they get put into practice is a different | topic. The point is that nuclear is not inherently and | permanently as expensive as it has been for the past few | decades. | | > And it didn't address the time scale issue at all. | | The time scale issue is directly related to the cost | issue. Costs are so high not due to material costs, but | because of the engineering and construction overheads. | Standardize the designs, streamline the approval | processes and both construction time & costs will | decrease. | | And to your solar point, until there's a viable way to | store the energy that solar produces it's not a solution | on its own regardless of how cheap it is. Same goes for | any renewable that doesn't have the on-demand | characteristic of nuclear. | | To be clear: I'm not saying to not use solar. I'm saying | to build solar, wind, nuclear, and whatever else. I | honestly don't really care how expensive any of them are | anymore because the costs of not stopping carbon | emissions will be far higher than the cost of building | these renewable/nuclear generating stations. | asien wrote: | Appreciate the graph in the article , this time the numbers | actually are calculated by engineers from DoE , not by | Journalists... | | Even if the plan is there , without an "economy of war" and the | implication of basically every single American it's nearly | impossible to reach those types of deployment. | | Money is not the answer to everything , as pointed we are also | going to reach "civilization" types of limits with land and | ressource exhaust... | | My humble opinion is we should simply consume far less energy and | accept a much simpler lifestyle, that would be much easier ... | megaman821 wrote: | Did we read the same article? The land usage for wind and solar | is about that of golf courses and coal. Getting permits to use | the land is the main obstacle. | | As for resource constraints, the limiting factor is the speed | on which a lithium mines can come online. The bulk of the that | being environment reviews and lawsuits. | | Americans are just going to have to come to terms with building | or mining stuff causes localized environmental damage and other | externalities for the communities that live close by. We should | weight the pros and cons and move swiftly with whatever the | decision is. | RadixDLT wrote: | does that mean nuclear power? | acdha wrote: | Maybe, but that's the slow option so we should be doing | renewables now, which can come online in just months, while the | much slower process of adding nuclear capacity unfolds. If we | shift the large amount of power generation which renewables can | provide over that buys us enough time to build nuclear. | Krasnol wrote: | No it doesn't since nuclear waste is not clean and as the | article says: renewables are cheaper already. | orthecreedence wrote: | Oh, nice! Didn't know battery tech and PV panel production | were clean now. That's a great leap. | TurkishPoptart wrote: | OK, fine, but to what extent will it impoverish working people or | reduce their wealth? It's more important to consider human | happiness and wealth, rather than sacrificing the poor on the | altar of carbon emissions. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-18 23:00 UTC)