Get those construction contacts signed!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, renewables cannot do it alone

    They absolutely can when paired with storage. Nuclear is not needed.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      -31 year ago

      Storage? Like battery storage? Lead? Lithium? Go on, tell me more.

      Or will we flood river valleys? What are you thinking?

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I took graduate level courses in storage with these technologies at scale. Neat that this knowledge is useful again.

          Pumped and compressed require specific geologic formations. Most of the sites for pumped have already been developed in NA. There’s room for growth for compressed, but compressed also suffers from losses when the air that’s pumped into the crust cools. Hopefully, there are undeveloped compressed sites near regions with energy demands.

          Flywheels are a neat idea and still just that: an idea. It’s yet to been demonstrated they can reliably do more than grid frequency moderation. The reason it’s not very attractive to investors is that we don’t have materials to match the energy density of other technologies.

          Green hydrogen is also just an idea at the present. Nobody’s pursues this because of losses incurred generating hydrogen from water. I want this one to work!

          Finally, batteries. Do you think there are enough metals on the planet to build enough batteries for current and future demand?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Is your contention that a combination of all the methods I listed is insufficient for a renewable future that doesn’t include nuclear?

            • @[email protected]OP
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Yes, nuclear is the only one that’s sufficiently developed, with a supply chain that’s sufficiently developed, that’s ready for deployment right now.

              The others could get there some day, and I hope they do, but we cannot wait for that.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                You have it backwards. Each new nuclear plant is essentially bespoke, that’s why they cost so much. It’s wind and solar that have an established supply chain.

                • @[email protected]OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  I think we’re misunderstanding. Nukes, like wind and solar, are made out of concrete and steel which have developed supply chains. It’s the storage part that is not developed for renewables.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    You need to look into how nuclear plants are built. They’re custom made for each site, there’s no supply chain there. Why do you think they nearly always end up over budget and behind schedule? A robust supply chain prevents those things.

                    By your logic I could say that pumped hydro storage has a robust supply chain because dams can be made out of concrete.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              It’s not. We HAVE to have baseline power generation. Today that comes by either burning fossil fuels, or nuclear, with hydro/geo etc making up a trivial percentage. Only oil industry propaganda conflates nuclear with solar/wind.

          • @Zoboomafoo
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Iron-air batteries seem rather promising for being cheap and scalable