First of all, you assumed wrong. But that doesn’t really matter. Sticking with your USA example, it’s actually very likely that there will be moments throughout the year when there is not enough sun and wind to power the entire country. What about quiet winter days or even nights?
And maybe there is some wind in California. Is your plan to place enough wind turbines there to power the rest of the country?
The problem is with reliability. You need power at all times, and not 95% of the time.
As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?
The point is, why wouldn’t you also use nuclear power? What makes it so bad that you want to ditch it? Even if it takes a decade or more to build. It’s a proven technology and extremely stable, much more so than solar or wind, which are not as reliable as you would make it seem.
I don’t think that graphic shows what you’re trying to say. Or is at least a very bad choice to support your argument.
A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources. Nobody’s denying that.
I don’t even want to avoid nuclear like the plague or anything, I do get the appeal. But, as your graphic underlines, it is a rather very constant energy source, which means, that it doesn’t pair very well with fluctuating sources like solar and wind.
Since your not from the US, I’m gonna forget about that example for the time being, and concede, that there might be smaller national grids, that would indeed suffer more extremly from a lack of wind/solar inputs. But nuclear still isn’t a good fit then, because you’d actually need energy generation with a lower capacity factor, which can react to the fluctuating demand and generation in the grid.
Batteries are only one option here.
As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?
You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride.
The resources are abundant, easily available and are already being extracted for other purposes in large quantities.
So, yes, I think they will be feasible for the entire planet and it won’t take decades to get the resources and build infrastructure to make them. The technology isn’t all that different from other batteries, they can use existing infrastructure.
I don’t have time to write more, right now, but I hope you can see some of the issues here.
A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources.
Well yes. Obviously. And they are rarely able to supply at full power. So that means you are going to have to fill the gaps. To have a functioning grid, you need stability. You can’t say, well it works 95% of the time, as good as it gets folks!
The graph underlines that NPPs can reliably un at maximum power almost all of the time. Not that they have to. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t get what that means.
lower capacity factor
Excuse me what? The capacity factor is about reliability, not flexibility. Why on earth would you want something that’s less reliable. You know you can’t tune the wind or sun, right?
Batteries are only one option here.
And nuclear is another. Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?
You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride.
Yeah I know what sodium is. I don’t need a mansplaination, thanks.
But if you honestly think all it takes to make a sodium ion battery is slapping some salt inside a container we need to start at a whole another level…
they can use existing infrastructure.
No they can’t. We need all of those and more to make Li-ion batteries to make the transition to EVs.
Your entire premise is based on wishful thinking. Let’s not base our entire future on wishful thinking. Instead, let’s diversify, and yes, that includes nuclear to get us through the winter.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way):
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.
Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I’d like to leave it here for the time being.
I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.
First of all, you assumed wrong. But that doesn’t really matter. Sticking with your USA example, it’s actually very likely that there will be moments throughout the year when there is not enough sun and wind to power the entire country. What about quiet winter days or even nights? And maybe there is some wind in California. Is your plan to place enough wind turbines there to power the rest of the country?
The problem is with reliability. You need power at all times, and not 95% of the time.
As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?
The point is, why wouldn’t you also use nuclear power? What makes it so bad that you want to ditch it? Even if it takes a decade or more to build. It’s a proven technology and extremely stable, much more so than solar or wind, which are not as reliable as you would make it seem.
I don’t think that graphic shows what you’re trying to say. Or is at least a very bad choice to support your argument. A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources. Nobody’s denying that.
I don’t even want to avoid nuclear like the plague or anything, I do get the appeal. But, as your graphic underlines, it is a rather very constant energy source, which means, that it doesn’t pair very well with fluctuating sources like solar and wind.
Since your not from the US, I’m gonna forget about that example for the time being, and concede, that there might be smaller national grids, that would indeed suffer more extremly from a lack of wind/solar inputs. But nuclear still isn’t a good fit then, because you’d actually need energy generation with a lower capacity factor, which can react to the fluctuating demand and generation in the grid.
Batteries are only one option here.
You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride. The resources are abundant, easily available and are already being extracted for other purposes in large quantities.
So, yes, I think they will be feasible for the entire planet and it won’t take decades to get the resources and build infrastructure to make them. The technology isn’t all that different from other batteries, they can use existing infrastructure.
I don’t have time to write more, right now, but I hope you can see some of the issues here.
Well yes. Obviously. And they are rarely able to supply at full power. So that means you are going to have to fill the gaps. To have a functioning grid, you need stability. You can’t say, well it works 95% of the time, as good as it gets folks!
The graph underlines that NPPs can reliably un at maximum power almost all of the time. Not that they have to. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t get what that means.
Excuse me what? The capacity factor is about reliability, not flexibility. Why on earth would you want something that’s less reliable. You know you can’t tune the wind or sun, right?
And nuclear is another. Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?
Yeah I know what sodium is. I don’t need a mansplaination, thanks.
But if you honestly think all it takes to make a sodium ion battery is slapping some salt inside a container we need to start at a whole another level…
No they can’t. We need all of those and more to make Li-ion batteries to make the transition to EVs.
Your entire premise is based on wishful thinking. Let’s not base our entire future on wishful thinking. Instead, let’s diversify, and yes, that includes nuclear to get us through the winter.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
You can find capacity factors here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b (And in the similar table focussing on fossil power)
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.
The PDF containing technical notes explains, how capacity factor is being calculated. See p. 21 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/AppendixC.pdf
Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I’d like to leave it here for the time being. I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.