4 ms·
> national security That's a bullshit ticket to do anything they want. Next. > grid resiliency As others have mentioned, batteries. Next. > unprofitable nuc
by craftyguy 8y ago
> national security
That's a bullshit ticket to do anything they want. Next.
> grid resiliency
As others have mentioned, batteries. Next.
> unprofitable nuclear (from GP)
> However, getting rid of nuclear
Do you recognize the difference between antiquated, unprofitable nuclear power plants and modern ones like those in the article? Your comment seems to lump them all togther, which suggests you don't. The US has many of the former and none of the latter. The latter would be beneficial.
- 3rdAccount 8y agoNo my friend. It isn't a joke. This is being taken seriously throughout the entire industry. Batteries are nowhere near where they need to be. If we lose a pipeline in New England, batteries will not last long enough to serve load along with solar and wind. That might be viable in 10-15 years, but not now. Look at all the latest reports from ISO-NE. They are the neutral party running the grid in that area. I understand very well that the majority of nuclear plants slated to retire in the US are doing so because of economics. I'm not interested in something that isn't slated to be built over here anytime soon.
- andromeduck 8y agoBatteries aren't good enough yet and won't be good enough for medium term grid level storage for another 10-20 years. The only real option we have right now is hydro and more expansive hvdc grids.