4 ms·
The point is that current energy storage facilities are too small for fully renewable grid (or arguably even 60% renewable grid). Even as a nuclear supporter I
by _Tev 4y ago
The point is that current energy storage facilities are too small for fully renewable grid (or arguably even 60% renewable grid).
Even as a nuclear supporter I would welcome more renewables if we had cheap scalable storage, which no one has it seems. (at least no one pointed out such project in the entire thread)
- Manuel_D 4y agoA minor caveat: some regions have large hydroelectric generation, which doubles as a great energy storage site. Countries seem to be able to manage a roughly 1:1 ratio between intermittent sources and hydroelectric generation. Sweden is managing to decarbonize it's grid with ~1/3rd each of nuclear, intermittent sources, and hydroelectric. But for much of the world what doesn't have this option, nuclear remains the most viable energy source.
- _Tev 4y agoYes, that's what I meant by "scalable". You can't just continue picking low hanging fruit forever. Btw even the Sweden example uses nuclear for decarbonization of the grid ...