5 ms·
>For three straightforward reasons There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable. And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't e
by macspoofing 6y ago
>For three straightforward reasons
There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable.
And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup.
Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
- pfdietz 6y agoAnd you have not refuted the explanation I gave for why there was not a deployment yet. That explanation is why the argument you are sticking to there is nonsense. Your last question there has the answer "because the cost of CO2 in Europe is not high enough yet." Hydrogen doesn't make sense until natural gas is quite expensive, but even then a renewable system with hydrogen will be cheaper than a CO2-free system with fully costed nuclear. Are you employed by the nuclear industry, by any chance? If so, if you aren't too old, run do not walk to another career.