Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You seem to forget that storage also has no operating expense.

The cost of operating a steam turbine far exceeds the cost of the coal or uranium driving it. But the steam turbine would not be the only operating expense for fusion. We don't know exactly what it would cost to sieve a thousand tons of molten FLiBe every day to get out the tritium produced that day, because no one even knows any way to achieve it at all. But it would certainly be a huge daily expense, if achieved.




> You seem to forget that storage also has no operating expense.

Who said operating expense only? I was definitely considering capital costs too, amortized over a few decades.

Steam turbines are fine for backing up unreliable renewables.

> But the steam turbine would not be the only operating expense for fusion. [...]

Okay, but I was only addressing the idea of steam turbine costs by themselves.


Combined-cycle gas turbines are fine for backing up renewables and storage. They are used for that today. As the amount of renewables and then storage built out increases, the amount of time the gas turbines must run, and thus total operating expense, declines.

It should be clear that to build out storage when there is not surplus renewable generating capacity to "charge" it from would be foolish. The immediate exception is to time-shift renewable energy generated at midday peak for evening delivery, as is being done successfully today.

Steam turbines, by contrast, are expensive to operate, and slow to start up and shut down.

Capital expense of renewables is very low already, and still falling. Even substantial overbuild to charge storage from does not change this. Cost of various forms of storage is falling even faster. By the time much storage is needed, it will be very cheap.


> Combined-cycle gas turbines are fine for backing up renewables and storage.

So are plain steam turbines, if you have cheap steam.

> Steam turbines, by contrast, are expensive to operate, and slow to start up and shut down.

Huh? Combined cycle setups use steam turbines as part of the system. Steam turbines can ramp up and down plenty fast. It's traditional heat sources that don't ramp well.

> By the time much storage is needed, it will be very cheap.

That would be nice but I'm not depending on it, and I'm definitely not going to assume that long term storage will ever be cheaper than steam turbines.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: