undefined | Better HN

0 pointsepistasis10mo ago0 comments

Clean energy is scaling far faster than gas. Coal is dead. Nuclear takes 10+ years, and the US industry is so small that it can not scale to meet future needs.

Look at what was deployed last year, in GW terms:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586#:~:tex...

but note that gas produces at a capacity factor of ~50%, and solar at 25%, so scale solar down by half to better compare gas to solar.

Batteries are also here in great force. The average cost of battery-backed solar is cheaper is comparable to gas, and cheaper than new nuclear.

The main barrier to new solar and batteries are grid expansion to ship the electricity places. Putting a datacenter next to a proposed site for building solar + batteries that's waiting for its turn to get connected to the grid would probably be the fastest way to scale, if fiber can go there.

0 comments

mmmBacon10mo ago

The main problem with renewables is their capacity factor (amount of time they can produce their max capacity). In the US this is ~24%, in Germany I think it's ~12% (can be wrong here). The reason for nuclear here is that it has the highest capacity factor of any form of energy (see EIA.gov).

epistasisOP10mo ago

Those numbers sound about right, but the real problem for solar in Germany is how it inflates the cost, and the intermittency. The capacity factor is just a readout of those problems.

Germany is one of the major economies with the very worst solar resources in the world. So it might actually make a lot of sense for them to build a bit of nuclear instead of stringing HVDC from Spain or Italy or wherever is sunnier. Or not, it's a very tricky projection! These costs are changing quickly, and any nuclear build is a bet not only on the current costs of technologies, but a bet on the future 30-60 years of costs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse