3 ms·

Space requirements for storage are not dictated by optimal nuke construction site criteria. In particular, no storage method has the potential to render a whole

by ncmncm 4y ago

Space requirements for storage are not dictated by optimal nuke construction site criteria. In particular, no storage method has the potential to render a whole region uninhabitable, and does not need the square-mile exclusion zone. There are many alternatives to batteries, for longer term storage. Tanked anhydrous liquified ammonia may be common, particularly for smaller and more isolated utility districts, in part because tankage can be topped up from imports if it runs low. Underground or sea-floor compressed air are practical, as is buoyancy, in many places. Many more places can use pumped hydro than have an existing dam, or watershed; either up a hill or down to an underground cavity. The method used will be whatever is cheapest in the place and time constructed. Cost for most methods is falling fast. Building a nuke is by far the most expensive baseline alternative, provided it can even be approved and built on a useful schedule.

simiones 4y ago
Let's compare the largest pumped water storage plant in the world - Nant de Drance in Switzerland [0] - with reactors at one of the largest nuclear plants in the world - Hanul in South Korea [1]. Nant de Drance has 900MW of storage, and took 14 years to build. Each of the last generation reactors in Hanul generate 950+MW of power, and took 5 years to build. The first newer generation reactor is 1340MW, and (assuming it keeps its schedule) has taken 10 years to build. They've done the first tests so they have some chance of connecting to the grid this year, but let's be pessimistic and say that it will take another 4 years - matching the construction time for Nant de Drance. That's still ~50% more power, and it is actually generating it: for Nant de Drance to help, it also needs >900MW of actual renewable power generation plants to be built and operated. [0] https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You mean the most expensive pumped water storage. There is little economy of scale, in pumped hydro. California stores a much larger amount of energy in numerous reservoirs all over the Sierra Nevada range.

by ncmncm 4y ago

simiones 4y ago

Let's compare the largest pumped water storage plant in the world - Nant de Drance in Switzerland [0] - with reactors at one of the largest nuclear plants in the world - Hanul in South Korea [1]. Nant de Drance has 900MW of storage, and took 14 years to build. Each of the last generation reactors in Hanul generate 950+MW of power, and took 5 years to build. The first newer generation reactor is 1340MW, and (assuming it keeps its schedule) has taken 10 years to build. They've done the first tests so they have some chance of connecting to the grid this year, but let's be pessimistic and say that it will take another 4 years - matching the construction time for Nant de Drance. That's still ~50% more power, and it is actually generating it: for Nant de Drance to help, it also needs >900MW of actual renewable power generation plants to be built and operated. [0] https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/en/the-plant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant

ncmncm 4y ago
You mean the most expensive pumped water storage. There is little economy of scale, in pumped hydro. California stores a much larger amount of energy in numerous reservoirs all over the Sierra Nevada range.