3 ms·

It is not all perfect, salt (molten) batteries have an operating range of about 300 degrees. In addition to having very long preparation times after discharge.

by Herz 4y ago

It is not all perfect, salt (molten) batteries have an operating range of about 300 degrees. In addition to having very long preparation times after discharge. If you don't use them in daily use they tend to discharge over time. And they have very low energy densities. We can wait for some scientific advances, but it is whishful thinking to hope that in a few decades they will invent the ultimate solution. Hydroelectric plants are the only large-scale storage, but they are highly dependent on the geology of the country. They are not a solution to seasonal storage. For me it is useless to go on all these big trips, the solution is very simple: mix of nuclear for base load, and renewable for peak.

moloch-hai 4y ago
Hydroelectric plants are not, in fact, "the only large-scale storage". Numerous practical storage methods are being fielded, many suitable at any scale. Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very, very common. I can see them in every direction, here. Maybe you can, too. A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future. Renewables + some storage are good for baseline. NG is good to fill in lulls longer than storage covers. Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it.
- Herz 4y ago
  Yeah, if you want to destroy whole landscapes and ecosystems to do pumped hydro, you can. But then it also becomes a little embarrassing to call yourself an environmentalist. Simply put, you'd rather destroy dozens if not hundreds of square miles per industrialized country instead of a few nuclear power plants? And you also propose to continue to pollute with NG. Wow, do you even get paid to state such things? Lol "Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it." Data? No because in one comment you talked about renewables, destroying km2 of land, building storage, and keeping NG (which a few billion per gas plant you pay them). I have the data (which are public on the various reports of international agency), but at this point I am curious to see how the fantasy story will turn out. At this point I wonder why you have such beliefs? Clearly you are not an environmentalist because you want to destroy whole landscapes, you don't care about polluting less because you proposed NG as a backup, what are you fighting for? That sounds like anti-scientific propaganda to me.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Anyone obliged to invent falsehoods to make their case reveals they have no case. No one has ever suggested we "destroy whole landscapes" for solar. You made that up from whole cloth. Good day.

by Herz 4y ago

moloch-hai 4y ago

Hydroelectric plants are not, in fact, "the only large-scale storage". Numerous practical storage methods are being fielded, many suitable at any scale. Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very, very common. I can see them in every direction, here. Maybe you can, too. A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future. Renewables + some storage are good for baseline. NG is good to fill in lulls longer than storage covers. Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it.

Herz 4y ago
Yeah, if you want to destroy whole landscapes and ecosystems to do pumped hydro, you can. But then it also becomes a little embarrassing to call yourself an environmentalist. Simply put, you'd rather destroy dozens if not hundreds of square miles per industrialized country instead of a few nuclear power plants? And you also propose to continue to pollute with NG. Wow, do you even get paid to state such things? Lol "Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it." Data? No because in one comment you talked about renewables, destroying km2 of land, building storage, and keeping NG (which a few billion per gas plant you pay them). I have the data (which are public on the various reports of international agency), but at this point I am curious to see how the fantasy story will turn out. At this point I wonder why you have such beliefs? Clearly you are not an environmentalist because you want to destroy whole landscapes, you don't care about polluting less because you proposed NG as a backup, what are you fighting for? That sounds like anti-scientific propaganda to me.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Anyone obliged to invent falsehoods to make their case reveals they have no case. No one has ever suggested we "destroy whole landscapes" for solar. You made that up from whole cloth. Good day.