4 ms·
As I said, order of magnitude error. > has built But enough? Global battery manufacturers have invested so much that they can take total battery capacity to
by nabla9 4y ago
As I said, order of magnitude error.
> has built
But enough?
Global battery manufacturers have invested so much that they can take total battery capacity to more than 5,500 GWh by by 2030. US would need something like 3000 Gwh of energy storage to replace the base load. (within days, then few weeks). It would would be insane misuse of resources.
- fallingknife 4y agoIn 2021 US power consumption was 3.93 PWh. 5500 GWh is a bit over 12 hours of consumption. Not gonna cut it. And that's assuming 100% of the batteries are used for grid storage, and there is no demand growth in the next 8 years.
- ZetaZero 4y agoWith Vogtle 3 & 4, the only nuclear plants coming online in the US, the construction costs are now projected to be $30 billion for 2.2 GW. We'd need ~1000 of these size plants to power the US. That's not going to cut it either.
- nabla9 4y agoNuclear is needed for base load, not for all electricity needs. Nuclear is the most cost effective way to achieve base load.
- pfdietz 4y agoNeither of these statements is true.
- fallingknife 4y agoYou mathed wrong. You would need a little over 200, but no one is suggesting powering the whole grid with nuclear.
- ZetaZero 4y agoand no one suggested we run the entire grid on PV/batteries, except you.
- ncmncm 4y agoVogtle will be cancelled before completion. That many $billions for 2GW is nothing short of pathetic. It cannot be cancelled soon enough.
- ncmncm 4y agoA negligible fraction of utility-scale storage will be batteries, so battery capacity hardly matters.