Comment

Comment on Texas Needs Equivalent of 30 Reactors to Meet Data Center Power Demand

First 0 nuclear reactors will be built anywhere in US before 2035.

Texas is actually a renewables leader because, believe it or not, it has the least corrupt grid/utility sector, and renewables are the best market solution.

Even with 24/7 datacenter needs, near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build than fossil fuel plants and long transmission, and it also allows an eventual small grid connection to both provide overnight resilience from low transmission utilization fossil fuel as peakers anywhere in the state as well as export clean energy on sunnier days.

Market solutions, despite hostile governments, can reduce fossil fuel electricity even with massive demand surge. One of the more important market effects is that reliance of mass fossil fuel electricity expansion and expensive long high capacity transmission, would ensure a high captive cost at high fuel costs because of mass use, in addtion to extorting all regular electricity consumers. Solar locks in costs forever, including potentially reducing normal consumer electricity costs.

source

Sort:hotnew top

cibco@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
“The least corrupt/utility sector” I must be thinking of the wrong Texas, which one are you referring too?

source
- throwback3090@lemmy.nz ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I think they mean “the same forces that led to the grid collapsing every few years – prioritizing profit above all else, and the government giving zero fucks-- are the same forces which trigger new development to be in renewables with zero regulation or oversight”
  
  Conservatives always write about their broken-clock-right-twice successes in a similar way.
  
  source
- humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Compared to California, where everything is done to increase customer rates, or most other states where long wait lines to connect power occur, you can measure effective corruption by how much energy additions are made, including home solar. You can be critical of their exposure to power system failures, but that doesn’t make the system corrupt.
  
  source
  - throwback3090@lemmy.nz ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Your measure of corruption is what now? How many new things are built regardless of their need or what impacts they may have?
    
    Very…unique standpoint.
    
    source
    humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Just that the lack of cheap energy built/connected is a function of all of the obstacles put in the way of those projects. They get done in Texas more than other places that “put out a better virtue vibe”, but behind the scenes put up obstacles.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build

But is it quicker at scale? Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand? Can it continue to do so over 10+ years? Can it outpace demand and start replacing fossil fuels?

Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.

Nuclear does a great job at providing a large amount of energy consistently. It’s really bad at fluctuations in demand, and it’s also really bad at quick rollout. I think it makes a lot of sense to build nuclear in Texas over the long term because it can start filling in demand as efficiency of older panels and batteries drop off, which extends the useful life of those installations and reduces reliance on battery backups.

I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries, which can be hard to get at scale. Use excess generation for electrolysis and use those for mobile energy use (e.g. trucks, forklifts, etc) or electricity generation. It’s also not ideal, but it could make sense as part of a broader grid setup.

Solar is awesome and we need more of it. I just want to encourage consideration of other options so we can attack energy production from multiple angles.

source
- humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  Can solar and battery production keep up with expanding demand?
  
  China is expanding so fast that they are accused of overproducing, and so supply capacity is not only there, it can increase further.
  
  Usually the proper solution is a mix of technologies. It shouldn’t be solar vs nuclear vs wind, but a mixture.
  
  The main benefit of wind is in battery reduction. A capacity equal to lowest night demand. Wind often produces longer hours than solar per day. The predictability of solar allows clear power forecasts, and then enough solar for needs with a small grid connection allowing both monetizing surpluses, and having resilience in shortfalls. Nuclear has no economic or climate roles, for being both too expensive and of too long a delay.
  
  I also think hydrogen is an interesting option as well, since it’s sort of an alternative to batteries,
  
  Hydrogen is the solution for having unlimited renewables and being able to monetize all of their surpluses. It is a bonus to be able to provide emergency/peak power, including renting a vehicle to have bonus value of powering a building. For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
  
  source
  - sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    For today, backup fossil fuel generators can still provide resilience value to solar.
    
    And that’s the issue. Nuclear is an effective alternative to fossil fuels and can make sense in many areas. What you need is:
    
    lots of space for waste disposal
    
    prevent disruption from activist opponents (delays drive up costs)
    
    enough projects that you get economies of scale for construction (e.g. specialized crews can move from site to site)
    
    high enough base load demand to fully utilize nuclear
    
    France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe, and they’re not particularly well-suited for it.
    
    It’s not a panacea, but it should absolutely be considered as a replacement for fossil fuels if energy demand is high enough.
    
    source
    humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Using existing infrastructure for backup/resilience as renewables are ramped up is the ideal. Was German last government’s approach. Cheaper (free) than even maintaining/refurbishing aging nuclear, allowing for private sector to expand renewables (also free). Standby payments to stay open and ready is cheap, and permits rapdid renewables to decrease their peaker use.
    
    “Baseload” nuclear has the inverse problem of renewables. It needs to sell all of its very expensive power near 24/7. Costs being dominated by its initial building, means that half capacity is double the breakeven power revenue. Nuclear needs to suppress cheaper energy to be viable, and in the ultra optimistic (Vogtle took 20 years) 10 year buildout period, renewables must be suppressed so that when the ON switch is set, full power sales occur.
    
    France has a ton of nuclear and it is on the cheaper end for electricity rates in Europe
    
    France has understood that building new nuclear should wait until 2060s, when possible construction technology is advanced enough. The heyday of nuclear came when electricity demand was growing fast, and fears of available reserves and geopolitics affecting alternatives. Coal is also excessively polluting and dirty, in a locally displeasing way. The environment of alternatives is much different today.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments