6 ms·
I think one of the problems is we need proof at scale. Yes there are many theoretical ways to store energy for the grid but until we see a reasonable implementa
by xupybd 4y ago
I think one of the problems is we need proof at scale. Yes there are many theoretical ways to store energy for the grid but until we see a reasonable implementation it's a hard argument to sell.
- pfdietz 4y agoYou realize exactly the same argument hits nuclear, right? Current commercial reactors cannot be scaled to power the world, since there isn't enough sufficiently cheap uranium. Breeders or radical new uranium sources are needed, and neither have proof at scale.
- xupybd 4y agoI think we're talking about different scales. Yes we haven't seen world wide nuclear but we have seen large cities worth of power. I think if we had that demonstrated with renewable storage it would look much better on paper.
- pfdietz 4y agoIf nuclear is not going to power the world, then renewables will have to. If nuclear supplies any substantial portion of the world's energy demand the issues I raised will bite. So to allow nuclear to evade those issues for ~1 generation of nuclear plants, renewables would have to supply almost all the world's energy demand. So that means storage will have to be solved (as nuclear would be horribly unsuited to covering outages in a renewable energy system.) Given that renewables and storage will have to be made to work, and are likely to be cheaper, I don't see the point of nuclear in this scenario.
- xupybd 4y agoI don't think 100% nuclear is the solution and long term renewables are a far better option. Mid term nuclear has a place.
- pfdietz 4y agoI think existing nuclear plants can remain operating in many cases. But building new plants? I don't see that making sense anywhere.
- xupybd 4y agoIn Europe now that Russian gas is not on tap?
- pfdietz 4y agoBuilding new nuclear plants would be a silly response to the current energy shock in Europe, since it would take so long for new NPPs to come on line. Renewables to reduce gas demand make much more sense, available both more quickly and more cheaply.
- scarby2 4y agoWhy not do both? I don't want to be here in 30 years time wishing we'd built reactors 30 years ago (which is where we are today)
- pfdietz 4y agoWhy not? Because it's economically pointless to build more nuclear at current prices. The current situation where you might regret not having built more reactors 30 years ago is not comparable. Renewables were not competitive with nuclear 30 years ago. But that situation no longer obtains.
- jskrablin 4y agoRenewables require backup generation. And usually that's gas burning powerplants because they have very short startup times. Main reason for wild prices of electricity in EU is gas supply crisis.
- 4y ago
- riffraff 4y agoDon't we have a similar issue with demand for lithium for batteries and rare earths for PV panels to the issue we have for uranium/nuclear? It is my impression both pro-renewables and pro-nuclear like to downplay the resource sourcing issues.
- tuatoru 4y agoThere isn't a resource problem for batteries. Lithium is best for mobility applications and lithium formulations are much further down the learning curve than other chemistries. However, all of vanadium redox, iron-air, organic polymer-based, calcium salt, and sodium chemistries are very nearly competitive, or actually competitive with lithium in various grid storage niches despite being at the very beginning of their learning curves. Is there ever going to be a shortage of iron or sodium? Or calcium or carbon, for that matter? No.
- pfdietz 4y agoNo, because there are thousands of potential battery chemistries (and storage technologies other than batteries), and also because the oft-repeated falsehood that PV contains rare earths is still false.