5 ms·

Or you can reduce your need for batteries by combining wind and solar with green, safe nuclear reactors - and smart grids capable of varying their demand instea

Or you can reduce your need for batteries by combining wind and solar with green, safe nuclear reactors - and smart grids capable of varying their demand instead of us trying desperately to adjust supply. For example, as more folks move to electric cars, a smart grid would allow chargers to charge less at periods of intense demand. We've historically focused exclusively on adjusting supply to meet demand - which is clearly very difficult and very expensive (especially if you look at gas peaker plants) - but we instead (or in addition) can adjust aspects of the demand curve to smooth out variability in load. This should be easier and significantly cheaper.

hedora 4y ago
Alternatively, keep burning fossil fuels, but overproduce renewables on average, and use the waste energy for carbon capture. (This has the big advantage of buying time to decarbonize things like concrete, cattle and airplanes.)
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be more efficient to not produce the carbon than to produce it on one side and capture it on the other?
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Whether something is more efficient might not be relevant. What's relevant is whether there is a path from here to there that keeps us under a survivable amount of climate change. Staying on that path may require some decisions that seem superficially inefficient.
    - splistud 4y ago
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Great, if we don't actually need the metals then there will be no one to buy them from the deep sea Miners and the problem will solve itself
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Sorry if I was unclear I think seafloor mining is an awful idea
burnished 4y ago
You still need batteries to support the solar and wind systems. If making the grid responsive to total load increases efficiency then hell, let’s do both
Schroedingersat 4y ago
1kg of Lithium in an LFP battery provides diurnal storage for about the same amount of power as 1kg of Uranium can produce, lasts 3x as long, is recyclable, and mining the lithium is less harmful.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  Batteries don't store "power". They store energy. Uranium fission, on the other hand, produces energy. Comparing energy storage with energy production is not valid. Also, your numbers are way, way off. 1 kg of U-235 can produce about 24,000,000 kWh of energy. There's no way you're going to store that in 1 kg of lithium batteries.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Hilarious attempt at misdirection. The conceit is that the 'need' for batteries to run renewables is environmentally destructive and makes renewables a bad option. Putting that in context reveals it's still a better option than nuclear, even though there are other options that are even better on the renewable side where they're appropriate. You don't mine U235. You mine 99.3% U238 and then leave a third of your U235 in enrichment tailings (or burn it straight in a CANDU). And storage of a given time duration is indexed by power. 1kW of diurnal storage is enough storage to provide 1kW over daily variation. Extracting 1kg of Uranium nets you 1kW for a few years. Extracting 1kg of Lithium nets you enough storage to run 1kW of solar + wind for several times as long. The solar panel is made of about the same amount of sand as goes into the nuclear power plant. It is less limited by Silver than the control rods are limited by indium, silver and cadmium.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      > Hilarious attempt at misdirection. You don't know the difference between energy and power, nor between energy production and energy storage. That's not "misdirection" of any kind.
      - 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

Alternatively, keep burning fossil fuels, but overproduce renewables on average, and use the waste energy for carbon capture. (This has the big advantage of buying time to decarbonize things like concrete, cattle and airplanes.)

arcticbull 4y ago
Wouldn't it be more efficient to not produce the carbon than to produce it on one side and capture it on the other?
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Whether something is more efficient might not be relevant. What's relevant is whether there is a path from here to there that keeps us under a survivable amount of climate change. Staying on that path may require some decisions that seem superficially inefficient.
  - splistud 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Great, if we don't actually need the metals then there will be no one to buy them from the deep sea Miners and the problem will solve itself

arcticbull 4y ago
Sorry if I was unclear I think seafloor mining is an awful idea

burnished 4y ago

You still need batteries to support the solar and wind systems. If making the grid responsive to total load increases efficiency then hell, let’s do both

Schroedingersat 4y ago

1kg of Lithium in an LFP battery provides diurnal storage for about the same amount of power as 1kg of Uranium can produce, lasts 3x as long, is recyclable, and mining the lithium is less harmful.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
Batteries don't store "power". They store energy. Uranium fission, on the other hand, produces energy. Comparing energy storage with energy production is not valid. Also, your numbers are way, way off. 1 kg of U-235 can produce about 24,000,000 kWh of energy. There's no way you're going to store that in 1 kg of lithium batteries.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Hilarious attempt at misdirection. The conceit is that the 'need' for batteries to run renewables is environmentally destructive and makes renewables a bad option. Putting that in context reveals it's still a better option than nuclear, even though there are other options that are even better on the renewable side where they're appropriate. You don't mine U235. You mine 99.3% U238 and then leave a third of your U235 in enrichment tailings (or burn it straight in a CANDU). And storage of a given time duration is indexed by power. 1kW of diurnal storage is enough storage to provide 1kW over daily variation. Extracting 1kg of Uranium nets you 1kW for a few years. Extracting 1kg of Lithium nets you enough storage to run 1kW of solar + wind for several times as long. The solar panel is made of about the same amount of sand as goes into the nuclear power plant. It is less limited by Silver than the control rods are limited by indium, silver and cadmium.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > Hilarious attempt at misdirection. You don't know the difference between energy and power, nor between energy production and energy storage. That's not "misdirection" of any kind.
    - 4y ago