3 ms·
Solar and wind don't provide predictable power. Even places with high reliance on these tend to have an ongoing dependency on coal (or nuclear) to handle times
by dpark 9y ago
Solar and wind don't provide predictable power. Even places with high reliance on these tend to have an ongoing dependency on coal (or nuclear) to handle times when supply from renewables drops.
- beat 9y agoOnly until we provide energy storage as part of the power grid - which is coming. Capture surplus from solar/wind when the sun shines and the wind blows, dump it back into the grid when demand exceeds generation. This is doable with technology that's a century old. We just haven't built it yet. We will.
- okreallywtf 9y agoAs well as larger more interconnected grids (probably utilizing HVDC). It reminds me of this onion article [1]. Its obviously hyperbole, there are actual real issues to resolve but compared with building nuclear weapons and going to the moon? [1] http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-politely-remind-world-that-clean-energy-36086 http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-politely-remind-w...
- okreallywtf 9y agoThis has been discussed ad nauseam, we need 1) storage, 2) smarter grids (which we need anyways). Of course there will have to be investment but what better investment could there be? We get 1) jobs, 2) cleaner air, 3) to keep living and have future generations able to live as well or better than we did.
- dpark 9y ago> This has been discussed ad nauseam Then why are you claiming that you do not understand it? Yes, there are potential mitigations but there are major engineering concerns with large scale storage. You say that we can scale solar today but the reality is we can't yet. Nuclear is sustainable energy that we can scale now without additional concerns about also scaling energy storage. That's why people are interested.
- beat 9y agoI think we'll be able to solve the storage-grid engineering problems and scale solar faster than we would be able to scale nuclear. Nuclear is expensive to build.
- _Tev 9y agoPlease compare it with how expensive energy storage is.
- okreallywtf 9y agoI don't think storage is really the ideal long term solution either, storage is more short term and is more like a buffer I think. The ideal is having large interconnected grids with a great diversity of sources. We essentially have the technology right now, its just a matter of building the infrastructure which nobody is really willing to foot the bill for even though its needed for everyone.
- okreallywtf 9y agoBut we can't really scale nuclear, not in any kind of reasonable time frame. Take this for example [1], billions of dollars and decades to finish. Nobody thinks there won't be a transition period where we have to use existing coal, natural gas and nuclear but in terms of what we should be investing in right now, sustainable should be the focus I think. I have no issue with new nuclear plants where it makes sense, but it doesn't seem economically like it is actually that great of a choice given how expensive they are and how long they take to build.
- _Tev 9y agoYou forgot the link
- okreallywtf 9y agoMy bad - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro...