4 ms·

> Iron-air batteries are proven tech. I don't think you can fairly call anything that hasn't ever even provided .1% of the power in a grid "proven tech" with a

by mlyle 5y ago

> Iron-air batteries are proven tech. I don't think you can fairly call anything that hasn't ever even provided .1% of the power in a grid "proven tech" with a known economic picture. > Underground hydrogen storage is mature; Electrolyzing hydrogen at scale isn't, and the economics of electrolyzer cells are still awful. > Recent experience with nuke construction is that they consume $billions and produce exactly zero watts. I think it's interesting you wave away all the economics and practical problems with renewables, but ignore the fact that humankind has a long successful economic history of nuclear production and presumably could do this again if there were the political will. E.g. you make nuclear being hard into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

ncmncm 5y ago
Nuclear is mature tech. There are no surprises in store. About all we can look forward to is less-leaky plants, maybe, and lack of meltdown risk. Renewables get good news all the time. We know solar will be X% cheaper next year, wind Y%, and storage Z%, for years to come. Electrolytic production of H2 and NH3 is improving fast, with increasingly cheaper catalysts being discovered all the time. If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there. About double that cost and 50% greater timeframe is doable, IMO, with a greater emphasis on nuclear as part of the solution. Looking at California: right now we have about 20GW demand sustained overnight in excess of our 1.3GW of wind power. If you got 6GW of additional nuclear in there over our existing 2GW, and tripled wind... it looks a lot more tractable (but still very hard) to meet the remaining 10GW with storage. At the very least, our hydroelectric resources could be stretched much further, which makes the rest of the problem easier. And, of course-- that 10 / 20GW can be expected to go up, a lot: - We are phasing out natural gas heating, so we're going to have a lot more resistive and heat pump heat than before. - Vehicle electrification.

by mlyle 5y ago

ncmncm 5y ago

Nuclear is mature tech. There are no surprises in store. About all we can look forward to is less-leaky plants, maybe, and lack of meltdown risk. Renewables get good news all the time. We know solar will be X% cheaper next year, wind Y%, and storage Z%, for years to come. Electrolytic production of H2 and NH3 is improving fast, with increasingly cheaper catalysts being discovered all the time. If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there.

mlyle 5y ago
> If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there. About double that cost and 50% greater timeframe is doable, IMO, with a greater emphasis on nuclear as part of the solution. Looking at California: right now we have about 20GW demand sustained overnight in excess of our 1.3GW of wind power. If you got 6GW of additional nuclear in there over our existing 2GW, and tripled wind... it looks a lot more tractable (but still very hard) to meet the remaining 10GW with storage. At the very least, our hydroelectric resources could be stretched much further, which makes the rest of the problem easier. And, of course-- that 10 / 20GW can be expected to go up, a lot: - We are phasing out natural gas heating, so we're going to have a lot more resistive and heat pump heat than before. - Vehicle electrification.