The future of energy generation and storage

[Knobby22]

What I was saying is, the technology is already there and in use, what isn't there is the ability to build them in modular form and produce power with a cost benefit yet.
But wasn't that also the case for renewables 15 years ago, as the need increases and technology improves usually costs reduce, or is that only the case in socially acceptable technologies..
No doubt China or Japan will continue developing the concept and maybe the West will end up buying from them, as is usually the case.
There are many technologies, that started out from a very shaky beginning, to a viable industry. Ask Elon Musk, in reality the E.V didn't and on a lot of metrics still doesn't stack up, it is still a lot dearer than the equivalent ICE car, doesn't travel as far on the same volume of fuel and can't tow as well.
Maybe SMR's never will stack up, but IMO the story is far from being over and I wouldn't be calling an end to it yet.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-ceo-defends-modular-nuclear-plants-after-project-cancellation-2023-11-14/

In 2020, the Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion over 10 years for the plant, known as the Carbon Free Power Project, subject to congressional appropriations. The department has provided NuScale and others about $600 million since 2014 to support commercialization of small reactor technologies.


Hopkins said NuScale projects in Romania and South Korea continue to develop.

He also said a plan with service provider Standard Power to develop two gigawatts of nuclear power intended for data centers in Pennsylvania and Ohio was on track. A contract for that project would be completed "if not this week, next," Hopkins said.
NuScale was the first U.S. company to secure regulatory approval for its design of a small, modular reactor. Backers say such projects can be built in remote locations and can power heavy industries with emissions that have been traditionally difficult to abate.

NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant jumped 53% to $89 per megawatt hour, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.


Critics say small, modular reactors and other advanced reactor designs are too expensive to succeed.

"The termination of NuScale's contract signals the broader challenges of developing nuclear energy in the United States," said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Placing excessive reliance on untested technologies without adequate consideration of economic viability, practicality, and safety concerns is irresponsible and clearly won’t work."

I have invested in an unlisted Uranium startup, so desperate this gets up.

 

[sptrawler]

I have invested in an unlisted Uranium startup, so desperate this gets up.

It is like everything eventually logics prevail, everything has a cost, be it monetary, social, environmental, health, lack of availability, finite resource etc.
Which cost takes precedence is dependent on demand or consequences that arise, ATM renewables are winning hands down so the money is being poured into them, eventually the cost of the lack of energy density will come to the fore and then that cost will be weighed against the next best clean energy, it's just a matter of time.
To say SMR will never be developed because of cost IMO is crazy, cost doesn't come into it if it becomes the only viable option, people will pay whatever the cost to have power available.
Cost doesn't worry people who spend millions of dollars, to buy a 300sq/m block of land in Sydney, with a bunch of bricks put up by some tradie with a trowel in their hand.
Where is the logics in that, when we have a huge country that is almost uninhabited, cost is one of the smaller considerations if it is considered an essential item.
Electricity is like a lot of things in life, people don't realise how much they need it, until they haven't got it. A bit like being caught in the middle of the City and dying for a crap, you would pay anything for a toilet, when you've been, you wouldn't give 2 cents for it.
ATM we don't need to go to the toilet.

 

[sptrawler]

It's not about the anti nuclear lobby.

Just on the subject of anti nuclear, this article in the Guardian, highlights how narrative can be driven by emotion and agenda rather than common sense IMO.
I find the opening paragraph mind numbingly dumb, what residual value did the 2012 Olympics give the U.K?
Yet obviously that was money worth spending, only 10 years further on the narrative is saying the Commonwealth games is a waste of money, seems justification for anything is fickle and down to who has the platform to voice their opinions.
I wonder if anyone bothered to ask an athlete for their opinion? We have heard the politicians and the reporters endlessly.

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant

The long read: Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?

www.theguardian.com

Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?

London 2012: Olympics success hailed by politicians

Boris Johnson declares London 'capital of the world' while David Cameron says Games could kickstart economic recovery

www.theguardian.com

Out of time? Unloved Commonwealth Games faces uphill battle to survive | Sean Ingle

Hosts are pulling out, costs are spiralling and the PR is a challenge: will the post-colonial festival of sport find a way to secure its future?

www.theguardian.com

Out of time? Unloved Commonwealth Games faces uphill battle to survive​

 

[Knobby22]

Just on the subject of anti nuclear, this article in the Guardian, highlights how narrative can be driven by emotion rather than common sense IMO.
I find the opening paragraph mind numbingly dumb, what residual value did the 2012 Olympics give the U.K?
Yet obviously that was money worth spending, only 10 years further on everyone is saying the Commonwealth games is a waste of money, seems justification for anything is fickle and down to who has the platform to voice their opinions.

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant

The long read: Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?

www.theguardian.com

Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?

London 2012: Olympics success hailed by politicians

Boris Johnson declares London 'capital of the world' while David Cameron says Games could kickstart economic recovery

www.theguardian.com

The big trouble with existing technology nuclear power stations is the huge build times and cost. Way longer than the political cycle.
Hence few politicians have the guts.
Once they are built though, the power is essentially free as France knows.

I was hoping that the use of smaller modular reactors that don't create the high level waste, could be made quicker and then just dropped into position would be a game changer.

If they can't make them cheap enough though, it is irrelevant - unless they get an advantage due to their lack of producing greenhouse gases e.g. carbon tax at production level, (not at consumer level).

But we just saw at the last conference how strong the fossil fuel lobby is and how they control the opinion agenda and they are willing to spend big bucks to get media and scientific influencers onside, so don't believe it can happen.

 

[qldfrog]

What I was saying is, the technology is already there and in use, what isn't there is the ability to build them in modular form and produce power with a cost benefit yet.
But wasn't that also the case for renewables 15 years ago, as the need increases and technology improves usually costs reduce, or is that only the case in socially acceptable technologies..
No doubt China or Japan will continue developing the concept and maybe the West will end up buying from them, as is usually the case.
There are many technologies, that started out from a very shaky beginning, to a viable industry. Ask Elon Musk, in reality the E.V didn't and on a lot of metrics still doesn't stack up, it is still a lot dearer than the equivalent ICE car, doesn't travel as far on the same volume of fuel and can't tow as well.
Maybe SMR's never will stack up, but IMO the story is far from being over and I wouldn't be calling an end to it yet.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-ceo-defends-modular-nuclear-plants-after-project-cancellation-2023-11-14/

In 2020, the Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion over 10 years for the plant, known as the Carbon Free Power Project, subject to congressional appropriations. The department has provided NuScale and others about $600 million since 2014 to support commercialization of small reactor technologies.


Hopkins said NuScale projects in Romania and South Korea continue to develop.

He also said a plan with service provider Standard Power to develop two gigawatts of nuclear power intended for data centers in Pennsylvania and Ohio was on track. A contract for that project would be completed "if not this week, next," Hopkins said.
NuScale was the first U.S. company to secure regulatory approval for its design of a small, modular reactor. Backers say such projects can be built in remote locations and can power heavy industries with emissions that have been traditionally difficult to abate.

NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant jumped 53% to $89 per megawatt hour, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.


Critics say small, modular reactors and other advanced reactor designs are too expensive to succeed.

"The termination of NuScale's contract signals the broader challenges of developing nuclear energy in the United States," said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Placing excessive reliance on untested technologies without adequate consideration of economic viability, practicality, and safety concerns is irresponsible and clearly won’t work."

The whole technology already exists even in french or Russian submarines or aircraft carrier.
Reproducing the same on land is a piece of cake..ohhh but not in a country where something as simple as building a matchbox sticks house cost a 3rd in regulations and compliance, and let's not forget the complete absence of qualified workforce/scientists...
But Labour will import them as refugees from Sudan, Palestine or Syria

 

[macca]

Yes, as usual we need to import experience, we don't even drive trucks now (in the mines)

What will it be like after 20 years when AI does everything for us

 

[qldfrog]

The big trouble with existing technology nuclear power stations is the huge build times and cost. Way longer than the political cycle.
Hence few politicians have the guts.
Once they are built though, the power is essentially free as France knows.

I was hoping that the use of smaller modular reactors that don't create the high level waste, could be made quicker and then just dropped into position would be a game changer.

If they can't make them cheap enough though, it is irrelevant - unless they get an advantage due to their lack of producing greenhouse gases e.g. carbon tax at production level, (not at consumer level).

But we just saw at the last conference how strong the fossil fuel lobby is and how they control the opinion agenda and they are willing to spend big bucks to get media and scientific influencers onside, so don't believe it can happen.

The smaller the scale the higher the % of waste vs energy produced....waste issue is not only spent rods but also every bit and pieces of steel concrete etc near the reactor etc which has to be embedded in a special molden glass then put in a giant swimming pool of ultra pure water and refrigerated for the next thousand of years..so for as long as the pyramids existed..just to put things in scale.
Can anyone seriously back this up?
So in my probably arrogant view, I see the backing of both the CO2 scam and the nuclear power plant as a preferred option to CO2 , as just a affirmation of scientific and technical absence of knowledge. To say it nicely

But we can do as with solar producing more CO2 but in China,
and proclaim we are clean by sending the waste O/S or burried in the outback after spreading $ , drugs and alcohol to the local Aboriginal communities under the guise of welfare/environmental progress.
how cynical...

 

[SirRumpole]

Once they are built though, the power is essentially free as France knows.

Don't think so.

What about fuel mining, processing and disposal costs ?

Certainly minute compared to construction costs but still significant.

Compared to basically no cost when it comes to hydro, but there are probably very few suitable hydro sites in the UK.

 

[qldfrog]

Now in the Christmas spirit and after wishing everyone a happy new year, a personal experience /story which you will see is surprisingly relevant to both renewable power and criticality of power continuity
Yesterday morning, SEQld got hit by another wave of storms and our new property, not the farm, got affected:
As I often parade here, we are fully off grid so we're all non plussed by storms power cuts etc but...
Yandina and more especially a telco tower there lost power or got hit by lightning, resulting at home in loss of mobile and NBN via wifi since 11am yesterday.

so even with power here, we were unable to receive or send any warning or call.
try to disconnect digital phone for a full day or more..no fun especially with SAAS Xero for example...and no Netflix etc..
We had to find back the DVD player
In parallel, we also for the first time experienced the range anxiety all EV owners (but VC) can get.
we did 2 dishwashers, used power as usual but by the end of the day, the cloud cover was so deep that we did not produce more than 30/50w during the day.
Surprised as even on a winter rainy day, we usually are back battery full at 1 or 2 pm..so at the end of dailight, the batteries were only 60% full. I even wondered if the panels were fried...
At wake up time this morning 49%..first time so low ever!
Luckily and as usual, the BOM and local media catastrophic weather forecasts failed, we did not even get a drop of rain today,( our dams are still bloody low..but better,) and we had full sun today so batteries were full at 10am
One 4g tower got resurrected in the afternoon ..so my posting from the corner of the patio now (and a visit to our favourite cafe on the range enabled us to keep in touch with the world, our family and ASF this morning)
Current status: full batteries for NY, some phone acces and some limited 4g , no NBN but I have a dvd copy of Harry Brown ready for tonight.
PS that is a movie I can recommend to any aging raving white male like me.
have all a great new year!

 

[qldfrog]

Don't think so.

What about fuel mining, processing and disposal costs ?

Certainly minute compared to construction costs but still significant.

Compared to basically no cost when it comes to hydro, but there are probably very few suitable hydro sites in the UK.

And the real cost is not in building but dismantling after 30 to 50y...
Sooner if you are German

 

[Smurf1976]

everything has a cost, be it monetary, social, environmental, health, lack of availability, finite resource etc.

The big problem is we've built our entire society around the pinnacle of energy resources, easily accessible onshore oil, and things not far below it - near surface coal, natural gas, offshore oil in shallow water, easily accessible on river hydro sites, etc.

Nothing we've come up with since has truly replaced those. The alternatives all come with some sort of downside be it economic, technical, environmental or all of the above.

Likewise the conventional resources also have that basic problem. As the most easily extracted oil is used up the cost rises, same ultimately happens with the others. Even with hydro it's generally the case that the cheapest resources are developed first in any given area such that a point comes where the cost of further development escalates.

Ultimately though there's no choice other than to change at some point. Oil and gas aren't going to last, in terms of cheap resources, forever indeed we're already heading down the slope that's readily observable.

 

[qldfrog]

And the real cost is not in building but dismantling after 30 to 50y...
Sooner if you are German

And from memory, dismantling a nuclear power station is so scary/expensive that hardly any has been completed,I think only one or two have ever been completed..if we do not count Tchernobyl or Fukoshima lol..
People are usually closing / mothballing one reactor among many and pretend all is good..delaying the issue to the next government/ GM...ohhh surprise..

 

[sptrawler]

The big problem is we've built our entire society around the pinnacle of energy resources, easily accessible onshore oil, and things not far below it - near surface coal, natural gas, offshore oil in shallow water, easily accessible on river hydro sites, etc.

Nothing we've come up with since has truly replaced those. The alternatives all come with some sort of downside be it economic, technical, environmental or all of the above.

Likewise the conventional resources also have that basic problem. As the most easily extracted oil is used up the cost rises, same ultimately happens with the others. Even with hydro it's generally the case that the cheapest resources are developed first in any given area such that a point comes where the cost of further development escalates.

Ultimately though there's no choice other than to change at some point. Oil and gas aren't going to last, in terms of cheap resources, forever indeed we're already heading down the slope that's readily observable.

Yep, eventually the options become fewer and fewer, with it so do the choices, it will be self resolving so to speak.
Having no power isn't an option, so pick your poison, as they say.

 

[DB008]

Can't wait for the costs of batteries to come down and be able to cut the cord from Energy companies.

Here is this months usage (so far - another week to go)
Have solar (7.2kw system - Enphase IQ7 inverters and LONGi 450w panels)
Energy provider: AGL
Location: Brisbane
Fed back to the grid almost double my usage, still will get charged about $60 - $90 (hidden costs)
Have used ducted this month on/off, as needed

Hopefully it will be like mobile phones and when Telecom (Telstra) had a monopoly, then mobile phones came out and totally changed the market.

Fingers crossed.....

 

[sptrawler]

Can't wait for the costs of batteries to come down and be able to cut the cord from Energy companies.

Here is this months usage (so far - another week to go)
Have solar (7.2kw system - Enphase IQ7 inverters and LONGi 450w panels)
Energy provider: AGL
Location: Brisbane
Fed back to the grid almost double my usage, still will get charged about $60 - $90 (hidden costs)
Have used ducted this month on/off, as needed

View attachment 168105​

Hopefully it will be like mobile phones and when Telecom (Telstra) had a monopoly, then mobile phones came out and totally changed the market.

Fingers crossed.....

Don't hold your breath, the 'hidden' costs won't go away.

 

[qldfrog]

Don't hold your breath, the 'hidden' costs won't go away.

Indeed db08,
What makes you believe these hidden costs will not remain even if you cut the connection to the grid?
In Queensland, one of my warehouse had to pay 1k a year in water and sewerage fees..because it could be connected if we so desired.
We were not connected no water or severage yet had to pay.
If too many people go to battery, the local provider will ensure it will cost you money to cut your connection .

 

[basilio]

Came across this intriguing free solar panel/battery option. Seems clever and if the operators have done their sums right all parties come out ahead.

Free home solar and battery rollout begins with Diamond partnership – here’s how NRN’s value model works​

Australian startup NRN is rolling out its proposition to fit households with solar and batteries at no cost to consumers. Announcing its partnership with retailer Diamond Energy and the completion of a $13.5 million (USD 9.18 million) capital raise, the company believes it’s found the trick to successfully deploying free household renewables by focussing on retailer value. Pv magazine Australia spoke to NRN and experts about how exactly the model works and where the value comes from.
December 22, 2023 Bella Peacock

Image: NRN

Share​

Australian startup the National Renewable Network (NRN) says it has found a model to fit Australian households with no-cost rooftop solar and home battery systems. The systems in its program are not owned by the households, with full control handed over to the energy retailers.

The approach hinges on the value aggregated household fleets can provide to these retailers, which NRN says is substantial enough for retailers to then pass on discounted energy rates to the households, incentivising installation.

On average, NRN says its model saves households over $750 annually. For investors, NRN founder and Chief Executive Officer Alan Hunter tells pv magazine Australia there is a “double digit internal rate of return.”

NRN has today announced its formal partnership with Diamond Energy, which has been in the works for some time now.
“By working with NRN we’ve been able to help deliver a no upfront cost solar and battery solution. Our unique solution helps make the solar and battery even more affordable to our customers with the benefits delivered through our electricity bill,” Diamond Energy’s Mark Bertoncello said.

Free home solar and battery rollout begins with Diamond partnership – here’s how NRN’s value model works

Australian startup NRN is rolling out its proposition to fit households with solar and batteries at no cost to consumers. Announcing its partnership with retailer Diamond Energy and the completion of a $13.5 million (USD 9.18 million) capital raise, the company believes it’s found the trick to...

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

 

[sptrawler]

Came across this intriguing free solar panel/battery option. Seems clever and if the operators have done their sums right all parties come out ahead.

Free home solar and battery rollout begins with Diamond partnership – here’s how NRN’s value model works​

Australian startup NRN is rolling out its proposition to fit households with solar and batteries at no cost to consumers. Announcing its partnership with retailer Diamond Energy and the completion of a $13.5 million (USD 9.18 million) capital raise, the company believes it’s found the trick to successfully deploying free household renewables by focussing on retailer value. Pv magazine Australia spoke to NRN and experts about how exactly the model works and where the value comes from.
December 22, 2023 Bella Peacock

View attachment 168458
Image: NRN

Share​

View attachment 168459 View attachment 168460 View attachment 168461 View attachment 168462 View attachment 168463
Australian startup the National Renewable Network (NRN) says it has found a model to fit Australian households with no-cost rooftop solar and home battery systems. The systems in its program are not owned by the households, with full control handed over to the energy retailers.

The approach hinges on the value aggregated household fleets can provide to these retailers, which NRN says is substantial enough for retailers to then pass on discounted energy rates to the households, incentivising installation.

On average, NRN says its model saves households over $750 annually. For investors, NRN founder and Chief Executive Officer Alan Hunter tells pv magazine Australia there is a “double digit internal rate of return.”

NRN has today announced its formal partnership with Diamond Energy, which has been in the works for some time now.
“By working with NRN we’ve been able to help deliver a no upfront cost solar and battery solution. Our unique solution helps make the solar and battery even more affordable to our customers with the benefits delivered through our electricity bill,” Diamond Energy’s Mark Bertoncello said.

Free home solar and battery rollout begins with Diamond partnership – here’s how NRN’s value model works

Australian startup NRN is rolling out its proposition to fit households with solar and batteries at no cost to consumers. Announcing its partnership with retailer Diamond Energy and the completion of a $13.5 million (USD 9.18 million) capital raise, the company believes it’s found the trick to...

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

Interesting concept for those who can't afford their own system, we will have to watch how it unfolds.
Basically the Govt subsidises the install, the householder supplies the land component and the grid connection, the company shares in selling the output.
I wonder what happens, if the owner of the property uses more than they produce, as in they have an EV, a swimming pool, large A/C load and there is very little left over to export when export prices are high.
It is certainly an interesting concept though, the only thing that jumps out at me is, if they have full control of the system, they will be wanting to export into the grid during high demand which may coincide with the homeowners high demand time.
How much would the homeowner have to pay for importing power during the high demand period?

 

[qldfrog]

Interesting concept for those who can't afford their own system, we will have to watch how it unfolds.

So they need to be able to recoup the investment cost..I assume that they have to reduce the costs for the owners vs their electricity providers..
It is not easy to justify fully off-grid dollarwise only so I expect solar plus small battery staying connected and maybe feeding back the grid when profitable?
But interesting and a good idea.

 

[Smurf1976]

As with all this, first step on the financial side is to separate cost saving from cost shifting.

To the extent it saves real, actual costs that's very different from simply avoiding payment of an unchanged cost.

Without having seen the maths behind this one, I'll observe that rather a lot of what's going on is the latter. "Saving" costs by getting someone else to pay them rather than by actually saving that cost - that's why retail electricity prices keep going up.