2 ms·

> I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. [Citation required] Grid-scale battery systems h

> I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. [Citation required] Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. > nuclear would be quite competitively priced Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive; it's not competing against natural gas. It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. Solar is dropping ~10% per year...

sofixa 5y ago
> Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Then why are there checks notes 0 deployments ? Battery costs are exploding currently due to the hikes in prices of lithium, nickel and cobalt. Battery demand outstrips supply by far, and batteries are needed elsewhere. > It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. They're complimentary, not competition. Solar+wind alone
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Poor research skills do not tell us much about power generation build-out status.
panick21_ 5y ago
> Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Grid-scale batteries are still tiny. Lithium batteries will not solve the grid problem anytime soon. Lithium (and co) will be strained to the max already. Every other technology has barley been deployed at all. And there is already a whole litter of energy storage startups that have died. > Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive In order to get more expensive we would actually have to build plant. But literally any series engineering analysis of modern GenIV plants show gigantic potential of cost improvement. And if we could actually build them in series production there is another order of magnitude of potential cost improvement.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Storage startups dying is a symptom of plummeting prices -- bad for them, very, very good for us. There is little need, thus far, for storage, so little has been built. Right now, generating capacity is a better place to spend the money. Next year, the same storage will be much cheaper. By the time any nuke started could be finished, even if it would have been competitive today, it would not when finished. So, it would be abandoned before completion. They would not return any of the money spent.
DennisP 5y ago
Companies doing molten salt reactors, including Thorcon, think they can make nuclear dramatically cheaper. There are reasons to think they're correct. It seems like a good idea to let them try.

sofixa 5y ago

> Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Then why are there checks notes 0 deployments ? Battery costs are exploding currently due to the hikes in prices of lithium, nickel and cobalt. Battery demand outstrips supply by far, and batteries are needed elsewhere. > It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. They're complimentary, not competition. Solar+wind alone

ncmncm 5y ago
Poor research skills do not tell us much about power generation build-out status.

panick21_ 5y ago

> Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Grid-scale batteries are still tiny. Lithium batteries will not solve the grid problem anytime soon. Lithium (and co) will be strained to the max already. Every other technology has barley been deployed at all. And there is already a whole litter of energy storage startups that have died. > Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive In order to get more expensive we would actually have to build plant. But literally any series engineering analysis of modern GenIV plants show gigantic potential of cost improvement. And if we could actually build them in series production there is another order of magnitude of potential cost improvement.

ncmncm 5y ago
Storage startups dying is a symptom of plummeting prices -- bad for them, very, very good for us. There is little need, thus far, for storage, so little has been built. Right now, generating capacity is a better place to spend the money. Next year, the same storage will be much cheaper. By the time any nuke started could be finished, even if it would have been competitive today, it would not when finished. So, it would be abandoned before completion. They would not return any of the money spent.

DennisP 5y ago

Companies doing molten salt reactors, including Thorcon, think they can make nuclear dramatically cheaper. There are reasons to think they're correct. It seems like a good idea to let them try.