2 ms·
> Charging storage, later, from overprovisioned renewable capacity, or connecting to the power grid and selling on the open market, converts overproduction to i
by Manuel_D 5y ago
> Charging storage, later, from overprovisioned renewable capacity, or connecting to the power grid and selling on the open market, converts overproduction to income.
Except we have no way of building grid scale storage. Again, we have a few minutes of storage. Until then, wind and solar is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels. We have no plan to get rid of the fossil fuels until a storage breakthrough occurs.
> To see what later copies of existing nukes cost, we need look no further than Vogtle.
Like I said: building one power plant of a given design is way more expensive than building repeated copies of the same design. There were dozens of nuclear projects that had a cost to energy production ratio of less than a fifth of Vogtle.
- ncmncm 5y agoWe have many ways of building grid scale storage. All we lack is certainty about which kind will end up cheapest. It just isn't built out yet. Building out storage will be premature until after there is enough extra renewable generating capacity to charge it from. If lots of projects would have been cheaper than Vogtle, we may reasonably conclude that they didn't want one cheaper than Vogtle: it would have left too little scope for corruption and graft. Corruption is the ever-present companion of all nuke projects. Any nuke project without a ready conduit for graft will not be funded.