5 ms·

Casually suggesting we add the equivalent of our nation's supply of grid battery storage to get the equivalent of a single nuclear plants worth of energy is a n

by evilos 3y ago

Casually suggesting we add the equivalent of our nation's supply of grid battery storage to get the equivalent of a single nuclear plants worth of energy is a new one.

ben_w 3y ago
Is it? Given how fast reactors are getting built in the US, I'd say the batteries look like they're already doing much better than the reactors. Of course, both can change as the number are, while interesting, small.
- evilos 3y ago
  Even if we really could ramp up those factories and the corresponding mines for all the battery materials, those batteries will last maybe 10 ish years. Then they need to be recycled and we have basically no capacity for that today. A nuclear plant can easily go for 60 to 80 years with good maintenance.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    What do you mean "even if"? Can you name a single battery factory that has seen delays of cost overruns like nuclear regularly has? Can you point to a single investor that's willing to back new nuclear in the US like they are backing new battery factories all over? Your usage of numbers is off and extremely biased. Warranties for grid storage batteries are already longer than 10 years, and they don't suddenly stop working, they just experience finished capacity over time. Whereas 80 years for nuclear has no basis in reality, and most are getting shut down at forty due to excessive costs to continue operation. This sort of rose-colored view of nuclear, cherry picking the very best case from one's imagination, and then taking the very worst possible estimate of the comparator, is the type of self-deception that results in nuclear losing again and again. Without a clear view of why these projects fail, and what they actually can deliver, the entire industry has lost any credibility.
    - evilos 3y ago
      > Can you name a single battery factory that has seen delays of cost overruns like nuclear regularly has? Can you point to a single investor that's willing to back new nuclear in the US like they are backing new battery factories all over? I mean, those aren't the important parts in my view but yes to both. Berlin gigafactory had significant delays and the proposed expansion is on indefinite hold. Bill Gates is a large backer in Terrapower and they have a pilot plant planned in Wyoming. But I'm sure you will simply move the goal posts. > Warranties for grid storage batteries are already longer than 10 years, and they don't suddenly stop working, they just experience finished capacity over time I did say ten-ish, and good luck collecting on those warranties since the battery manufacturer corps are pretty ephemeral. Also, I kind of doubt operators will want to keep old batteries in their facilities since you're at increased risk for fires and those tend to be pretty dramatic in BES stations. Especially since in theory newer batteries should be better and cheaper right? As for the 60-80 year lifetime, the Gen II plants that are worth keeping around are just now getting close to their 60 year birthdays. Most of the shut down plants in the US are gen I with small capacities, usually less than 200 MW. And the ones that aren't often fell to local and private interests that wanted them gone for other reasons. The problem with nuclear in the US is not a technical one but a socio-political one. I have no idea if the turning tide of sentiment will be able to fix these issues but I find more people are coming around fairly recently. Thank god for France, South Korea, and China.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Then they need to be recycled and we have basically no capacity for that today Do you have any reason to believe making a batteries starting with batteries will be harder than making batteries starting with rocks?
epistasis 3y ago
In an industry that is an exponential growth phase, and basically a side product where the majority of its product goes into cars, yes, this is indeed a very casual suggestion. Far more causal than the suggestion of building a single new GW-scale reactor, when they have just proven to have a 50% success rate on build, and come in several times over budget and behind schedule. Until the nuclear industry shoulders the construction risk themselves, there's little chance of another utility making the decision to build a new reactor.

by evilos 3y ago

Casually suggesting we add the equivalent of our nation's supply of grid battery storage to get the equivalent of a single nuclear plants worth of energy is a new one.

ben_w 3y ago

Is it? Given how fast reactors are getting built in the US, I'd say the batteries look like they're already doing much better than the reactors. Of course, both can change as the number are, while interesting, small.

evilos 3y ago
Even if we really could ramp up those factories and the corresponding mines for all the battery materials, those batteries will last maybe 10 ish years. Then they need to be recycled and we have basically no capacity for that today. A nuclear plant can easily go for 60 to 80 years with good maintenance.
- epistasis 3y ago
  What do you mean "even if"? Can you name a single battery factory that has seen delays of cost overruns like nuclear regularly has? Can you point to a single investor that's willing to back new nuclear in the US like they are backing new battery factories all over? Your usage of numbers is off and extremely biased. Warranties for grid storage batteries are already longer than 10 years, and they don't suddenly stop working, they just experience finished capacity over time. Whereas 80 years for nuclear has no basis in reality, and most are getting shut down at forty due to excessive costs to continue operation. This sort of rose-colored view of nuclear, cherry picking the very best case from one's imagination, and then taking the very worst possible estimate of the comparator, is the type of self-deception that results in nuclear losing again and again. Without a clear view of why these projects fail, and what they actually can deliver, the entire industry has lost any credibility.
  - evilos 3y ago
    > Can you name a single battery factory that has seen delays of cost overruns like nuclear regularly has? Can you point to a single investor that's willing to back new nuclear in the US like they are backing new battery factories all over? I mean, those aren't the important parts in my view but yes to both. Berlin gigafactory had significant delays and the proposed expansion is on indefinite hold. Bill Gates is a large backer in Terrapower and they have a pilot plant planned in Wyoming. But I'm sure you will simply move the goal posts. > Warranties for grid storage batteries are already longer than 10 years, and they don't suddenly stop working, they just experience finished capacity over time I did say ten-ish, and good luck collecting on those warranties since the battery manufacturer corps are pretty ephemeral. Also, I kind of doubt operators will want to keep old batteries in their facilities since you're at increased risk for fires and those tend to be pretty dramatic in BES stations. Especially since in theory newer batteries should be better and cheaper right? As for the 60-80 year lifetime, the Gen II plants that are worth keeping around are just now getting close to their 60 year birthdays. Most of the shut down plants in the US are gen I with small capacities, usually less than 200 MW. And the ones that aren't often fell to local and private interests that wanted them gone for other reasons. The problem with nuclear in the US is not a technical one but a socio-political one. I have no idea if the turning tide of sentiment will be able to fix these issues but I find more people are coming around fairly recently. Thank god for France, South Korea, and China.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Then they need to be recycled and we have basically no capacity for that today Do you have any reason to believe making a batteries starting with batteries will be harder than making batteries starting with rocks?

epistasis 3y ago

In an industry that is an exponential growth phase, and basically a side product where the majority of its product goes into cars, yes, this is indeed a very casual suggestion. Far more causal than the suggestion of building a single new GW-scale reactor, when they have just proven to have a 50% success rate on build, and come in several times over budget and behind schedule. Until the nuclear industry shoulders the construction risk themselves, there's little chance of another utility making the decision to build a new reactor.