4 ms·

The main power grid should be always from a predictable source. wind and solar are far from that. And there's the problem of disposing solar panels and old wind

The main power grid should be always from a predictable source. wind and solar are far from that. And there's the problem of disposing solar panels and old wind turbines. We came a long way, but there's a lot of space for improvements. Meanwhile, nuclear energy is a stable and mature technology.

pfdietz 5y ago
There is no need for a base load source to supply a base load of demand. Intermittent sources + storage to fill in the gaps can work just fine. The new thing is that this latter approach is looking like it will be cheaper.
- major505 5y ago
  Im no expert on batteries, but I don't see giant watery banks working in large scale, in most cities in the world. Today the better way to store energy still is with water reservoirs, and its expensive as hell, and you need a gigantic space that will be flooded.
- FredPret 5y ago
  That’s a LOT of batteries…
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The world is going to spend maybe a quadrillion dollars on energy over the next century. Big problems have big solutions.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      Physics couldn't care less about your "big solutions". All energy storage solutions we have are low capacity, slow to charge, slow to bring online, and often are extremely harmful to the environment to produce. Of course, you can close your eyes, and pretend this will be solved by magic in the nearest future. It won't. And we need solutions now.
      - major505 5y ago
        There also a slow revolution coming in nuclear energy of small, modular reactors, that are easier to maintain, produce less waste and are safer.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        The implication that physics prevents renewables and storage from being able to do the job is a despicable lie. The physical attributes of existing batteries (and related energy storage technologies, like hydrogen for long term storage) are perfectly compatible with a 100% renewable grid. We're just haggling over the cost at this point. I was addressing the shallow objection that it's a "lot of batteries". That's fine; the budget is will allow purchase of a lot of batteries, and all sorts of other stuff too.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > The implication that physics prevents renewables and storage from being able to do the job is a despicable lie. Pretending that I made this argument is an even more despicable lie. > The physical attributes of existing batteries (and related energy storage technologies, like hydrogen for long term storage) are perfectly compatible with a 100% renewable grid. It's also not what I argued against. > I was addressing the shallow objection that it's a "lot of batteries". That's fine No, it's not fine, and I listed the reasons why. However, you decided to invent an argument I never made and argue against that.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        So, this was your argument "All energy storage solutions we have are low capacity, slow to charge, slow to bring online, and often are extremely harmful to the environment to produce." This is 100% bullshit. Energy storage solutions can be scaled as high as we want. They can charge as fast as is needed. By "slow to bring online" you might mean two things (cannot be switch on to deliver power to the grid from an off state quickly, or cannot be built quickly), both of which are false. As for "extremely harmful to the environment", I also see no reason to believe that is true, especially compared to either the harm of CO2 or the harm imposed by the existence of industrial civilzation at all. So, you listed reasons, and they appear spurious. Care to defend your claims?
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Why build a bajillion batteries with all sorts of hazardous chems if we can do nuclear that has small amounts of waste. Let’s say you can fit the waste from a certain amount of nuclear energy in a barrel. How much energy can you create with the other methods, given you can only fill up that same barrel? With battery-supported renewables, my guess is: a hell of a lot less.

pfdietz 5y ago

There is no need for a base load source to supply a base load of demand. Intermittent sources + storage to fill in the gaps can work just fine. The new thing is that this latter approach is looking like it will be cheaper.

major505 5y ago
Im no expert on batteries, but I don't see giant watery banks working in large scale, in most cities in the world. Today the better way to store energy still is with water reservoirs, and its expensive as hell, and you need a gigantic space that will be flooded.
FredPret 5y ago
That’s a LOT of batteries…
- pfdietz 5y ago
  The world is going to spend maybe a quadrillion dollars on energy over the next century. Big problems have big solutions.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    Physics couldn't care less about your "big solutions". All energy storage solutions we have are low capacity, slow to charge, slow to bring online, and often are extremely harmful to the environment to produce. Of course, you can close your eyes, and pretend this will be solved by magic in the nearest future. It won't. And we need solutions now.
    - major505 5y ago
      There also a slow revolution coming in nuclear energy of small, modular reactors, that are easier to maintain, produce less waste and are safer.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The implication that physics prevents renewables and storage from being able to do the job is a despicable lie. The physical attributes of existing batteries (and related energy storage technologies, like hydrogen for long term storage) are perfectly compatible with a 100% renewable grid. We're just haggling over the cost at this point. I was addressing the shallow objection that it's a "lot of batteries". That's fine; the budget is will allow purchase of a lot of batteries, and all sorts of other stuff too.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > The implication that physics prevents renewables and storage from being able to do the job is a despicable lie. Pretending that I made this argument is an even more despicable lie. > The physical attributes of existing batteries (and related energy storage technologies, like hydrogen for long term storage) are perfectly compatible with a 100% renewable grid. It's also not what I argued against. > I was addressing the shallow objection that it's a "lot of batteries". That's fine No, it's not fine, and I listed the reasons why. However, you decided to invent an argument I never made and argue against that.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        So, this was your argument "All energy storage solutions we have are low capacity, slow to charge, slow to bring online, and often are extremely harmful to the environment to produce." This is 100% bullshit. Energy storage solutions can be scaled as high as we want. They can charge as fast as is needed. By "slow to bring online" you might mean two things (cannot be switch on to deliver power to the grid from an off state quickly, or cannot be built quickly), both of which are false. As for "extremely harmful to the environment", I also see no reason to believe that is true, especially compared to either the harm of CO2 or the harm imposed by the existence of industrial civilzation at all. So, you listed reasons, and they appear spurious. Care to defend your claims?
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Why build a bajillion batteries with all sorts of hazardous chems if we can do nuclear that has small amounts of waste. Let’s say you can fit the waste from a certain amount of nuclear energy in a barrel. How much energy can you create with the other methods, given you can only fill up that same barrel? With battery-supported renewables, my guess is: a hell of a lot less.