Don't know if it was a planned usage, or if it is because renewables are running a little low right now, but there is actually 'generation' from batteries in Alberta right now. 18 whole megs.
They are allowed to offer into the market. You can see that the pool price jumped to $213.93 and the batteries were dispatched based on the merit order.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
One of those under the radar but hugely impactful things happening in the world is the insane amount of energy we are going to need for everyone to be on the cloud, adopting IoT, and using AI (and AGI in the not too distant future). That isn't even mentioning the amount of energy needed for things like blockchains, quantum computing, EVs, and so forth.
The world is going to be getting more nuclear if for no other reason than to keep up with compounding demand.
Bitcoin mining is something like 1,000kWh a coin. (Or was it per transaction? Minor detail.) That's almost 7,000km of driving in a Model 3 (14.5 kWh/100km google tells me). That's an absurd waste of energy in my opinion.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
Bitcoin mining is something like 1,000kWh a coin. (Or was it per transaction? Minor detail.) That's almost 7,000km of driving in a Model 3 (14.5 kWh/100km google tells me). That's an absurd waste of energy in my opinion.
Even with recently released mining ASICs, there is barely any operating profit left after electricity costs (unless you get very low industrial rates). For this ASIC that was supposedly just released in June, it's over 400 thousand kWh per coin (assuming difficulty stays the same).
I don't have an issue with crypto farms sucking up excess power so long as it doesn't impact other customer groups though things like increasing transmission charges. They should also be placed on Time of Use rate schemes (honestly every jurisdiction should do this for all customers) so that they don't inflate prices during high demand periods.
The best use for surplus electrons would be to store them, but the economics are not quite there yet at a scale that moves the needle.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
Saw a reality good Tedx from Gerard Reid. Reid is a financier in the energy transition space.
Essentially, he says it's an energy Revolution not a transition. Seems like a difference without a distinction, but some interesting info nonetheless.
He identified four drivers of this revolution: solar energy, batteries, energy intelligence, and China.
Solar energy is a rapidly growing technology, and the amount of electricity generated from solar now produces more power than nuclear, and got to this point much, much, much quicker. This is because solar is a semiconductor technology that is scalable, easy to install, and cost-effective. You can buy balcony solar in Germany for €0.50 a watt and simply plug it into the wall. No electrician needed.
Batteries, particularly lithium-ion batteries, have also seen significant advancements, leading to the rise of electric vehicles (EVs). The continued cost devices and performance increase have made previously unthinkable uses like airplanes plausible. CATL employees 18,000 just in R&D. CATL just released a battery with a 1.5M kilometer warranty, yet the cell price dropped almost 20% again this year.
Energy intelligence, which includes connectivity, power electronics, software, and AI, is enabling more efficient management of electricity. Most of the energy we use today is wasted. Power is generated in large central locations and distributed from there. AI, software, power electronics make that model no longer necessary.
China is playing a crucial role in financing and leading the energy revolution. They are invest more in clean energy technologies than Europe and North America combined and are leading in the production of key components. China is also way ahead of Europe and North America in clean energy patents.
Reid argued that the world is close to peak carbon emissions and peak oil demand. He believes that electrification is key to decarbonizing the energy system and that a radically different power system will be built around renewables. The global South will copy China's new model because it's cheaper and gives them energy independence. Reid also highlighted the positive surprises in technology, particularly in storage, and emphasized the role of R&D in driving that innovation.
China's dominance in this field presents a challenge for Europe and the US, and Reid urged the audience to wake up, change quickly, and lose their arrogance. He emphasized the need to understand the competitor and the importance of moving towards a renewable future.
Worth a watch if you find any of this interesting.
Saw a reality good Tedx from Gerard Reid. Reid is a financier in the energy transition space.
Essentially, he says it's an energy Revolution not a transition. Seems like a difference without a distinction, but some interesting info nonetheless.
He identified four drivers of this revolution: solar energy, batteries, energy intelligence, and China.
Solar energy is a rapidly growing technology, and the amount of electricity generated from solar now produces more power than nuclear, and got to this point much, much, much quicker. This is because solar is a semiconductor technology that is scalable, easy to install, and cost-effective. You can buy balcony solar in Germany for €0.50 a watt and simply plug it into the wall. No electrician needed.
Batteries, particularly lithium-ion batteries, have also seen significant advancements, leading to the rise of electric vehicles (EVs). The continued cost devices and performance increase have made previously unthinkable uses like airplanes plausible. CATL employees 18,000 just in R&D. CATL just released a battery with a 1.5M kilometer warranty, yet the cell price dropped almost 20% again this year.
Energy intelligence, which includes connectivity, power electronics, software, and AI, is enabling more efficient management of electricity. Most of the energy we use today is wasted. Power is generated in large central locations and distributed from there. AI, software, power electronics make that model no longer necessary.
China is playing a crucial role in financing and leading the energy revolution. They are invest more in clean energy technologies than Europe and North America combined and are leading in the production of key components. China is also way ahead of Europe and North America in clean energy patents.
Reid argued that the world is close to peak carbon emissions and peak oil demand. He believes that electrification is key to decarbonizing the energy system and that a radically different power system will be built around renewables. The global South will copy China's new model because it's cheaper and gives them energy independence. Reid also highlighted the positive surprises in technology, particularly in storage, and emphasized the role of R&D in driving that innovation.
China's dominance in this field presents a challenge for Europe and the US, and Reid urged the audience to wake up, change quickly, and lose their arrogance. He emphasized the need to understand the competitor and the importance of moving towards a renewable future.
Worth a watch if you find any of this interesting.
I’m reminded of the way the global south skipped mass adoption of land lines in favour of cell phones, because the tech was ready as their economies were.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
I wonder how realistic it is that it will be actually viable in the time frame they mention.
I'd say less than zero chance.
The big, huge problem with many of these clean tech start ups is that they're funded with money from venture capital. In some ways, that's what we want. But the dark side is many venture capitalists are pump and dump specialists. Invest in start up, get them to make big plans they simply can't achieve to look like the next Tesla, then sell. The only way to attract more capital is to push the announcements further. There's nothing to lose because they're a start up.
You saw this with Nicola Motors, Northvolt, etc. A bunch of big announcements of stuff that was going to happen, and then boom. Bankruptcies.
Fusion is still a theoretical technology. You simply can't go from the most complex energy technology we've ever tried that to this date has a record generation of 19 kWh, or enough to run an oven for a couple hours. That's after putting thousands of KWh in.
I think it may succeed at some point but I don't believe fusion will ever be a big source of electricity. These builds will be much more complex than fission reactors and even those will continue to have a hard time.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Not only that, SP, but fusion only offers a 10x improvement on fission with 1,000,000x the difficulty in producing and extracting net exergy.
People seem to think it will not produce radioactive waste, but it makes neutrons. So you need to shield the hell out of that. And anything that gets bombarded with neutrons becomes activated itself, and will remain at least low level waste for a long time, too.
I'm all for adventures in science for the serendipity but let's not pretend this is "just around the corner".
You're totally right about a mismatch in capital partners, too. VCs are severely IMPATIENT capital, and fusion is at a place where it requires PETRIFIED capital. It makes me wonder why there has been a big rush of VC into the space this year. I think it could have more to do with the undercurrents of what is happening between SF and DC, from a shifting of centres of political power.
For a long time the fusion game has been dominated by national labs. This is because the fruits of these experiments have mostly been used to simulate and maintain existing warhead inventory after the creation of the test ban treaty. Splashy "breakthroughs" seem to get announced whenever the US wants to project technological superiority or make a recruiting push.
Private interests that have overlap in AI and in fission have made great strides to gain favours politically in the last two years, and it is accelerating. I wonder how much of that trend is influencing a surge in private interest in Fusion...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
IMO a lot of the expectations from "clean tech" comes from people hoping they won't have to change anything about their lifestyle to react to climate change.
It's essentially magical thinking. "Tech will save us if we just invest". Or wishful thinking.
Or a scam, like fossil fuel companies advertising carbon capture as a solution.
The problems we have need to be solved with the tech we have. Putting your hopes in tech that doesn't exist yet is not much better than praying to the gods.
Yet another looming nuclear construction disaster in the UK.
Hinckley Point is already a black eye for EDF and British Nuclear hopes coming in so far at 8x the initial estimated cost, and delays mean that since the deal was signed and announced in 2008 and the earliest estimated commissioning date in 2029-2031 means 21 years from conception to completion at best. There's a snowball's chance in hell it isn't delayed further.
Now, Sizewell C is supposed to benefit from significantly cost and timeline wise as they're simply replicating Hinckley design. This is why you see much lower cost estimates here for now construction in NA after the Vogtle plant in Georgia went more than $20 Billion and 7 years over plan. The idea is, now we know how to build them so they'll be cheaper. Today it was announced that Sizewell C will double to $40B in cost and construction is to start this month after agreeing to and announcing this project in 2015. This is not a good sign moving forward for these mega projects.
I sincerely would like nuclear to work because it is so much better than fossil fuels, but the economics and timelines make me extremely doubtful of its contribution.
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 01-15-2025 at 07:36 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Yet another looming nuclear construction disaster in the UK.
Hinckley Point is already a black eye for EDF and British Nuclear hopes coming in so far at 8x the initial estimated cost, and delays mean that since the deal was signed and announced in 2008 and the earliest estimated commissioning date in 2029-2031 means 21 years from conception to completion [i]at best[/]. There's a snowball's chance in hell it isn't delayed further.
Now, Sizewell C is supposed to benefit from significantly cost and timeline wise as they're simply replicating Hinckley design. This is why you see much lower cost estimates here for now construction in NA after the Vogtle plant in Georgia went more than $20 Billion and 7 years over plan. The idea is, now we know how to build them so they'll be cheaper. Today it was announced that Sizewell C will double to $40B in cost and construction is to start this month after agreeing to and announcing this project in 2015. This is not a good sign moving forward for these mega projects.
I sincerely would like nuclear to work because it is so much better than fossil fuels, but the economics and timelines make me extremely doubtful of its contribution.
It would be interesting to know what is driving up costs. Is it some materials component that is the major driver? Labour related? Permitting? Management?
It would be interesting to know what is driving up costs. Is it some materials component that is the major driver? Labour related? Permitting? Management?
The issue is not unique to nuclear technology in my opinion. It's that the West cannot build big things. Just cannot. It's a cultural/skill gap issue that has worsened since the 60's
As for some reasons:
1) incredible corruption (both legal and illegal https://saportareport.com/another-in...olumnists/tom/) and misalignment of incentives. Why should a construction company receive additional multiples of the original agreement if not completed on time and budget?
2) unique supply chains are uniquely susceptible to irrational price spikes and outages
3) changing technology means despite the promise of replicating past designs, modifications keep getting made and this increases complexity and disruption
4) This might be the most significant: purposefully rosy initial estimates. There is not a soul on the planet who believes any of the original cost estimates of virtually every big project. Why we accept this when backed by government security is beyond me
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 01-15-2025 at 07:38 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I'd have to disagree on the West not being able to build big things. You'd have to ignore a lot of the industrial stuff in Alberta like the oilsands, the Site C dam, Churchill, and I'm sure there are others.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I'd have to disagree on the West not being able to build big things. You'd have to ignore a lot of the industrial stuff in Alberta like the oilsands, the Site C dam, Churchill, and I'm sure there are others.
Site C plays into the Pharmacist's narrative though in that it was grossly delayed and over budget for a myriad of reasons including regulatory and supply chain as well as indigenous.
The fact that Elon builds space rockets and not nuke plants is telling IMO. The scarcity of the projects means there is no learning rate. This affects both the execution and the estimating of these projects.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
Site C plays into the Pharmacist's narrative though in that it was grossly delayed and over budget for a myriad of reasons including regulatory and supply chain as well as indigenous.
And yet, it got built. I was responding to this:
Quote:
It's that the West cannot build big things. Just cannot.
That doesn't say we make it harder on ourselves, or more expensive, or take longer. It says we can't. I presented cases where we did. Hence the disagreement. Comprende?
The fact that Elon builds space rockets and not nuke plants is telling IMO. The scarcity of the projects means there is no learning rate. This affects both the execution and the estimating of these projects.
Elon builds stuff he can get government handouts for. I'd have to assume there aren't enough government hand outs for nuclear plants to make it worthwhile for him.
