4 ms·

Probably gonna get downvoted, but the only sane solution is nuclear. Also, I don't want a nuclear power plant in my backyard. I know that's the problem :)

neffy 3y ago
5% nuclear vs 80% renewables on the chart linked. Really, the sane solution is the one that brings down the financial system (debt for existing oil plant and nuclear is substantial, and has decade long write down periods attached to it.)
poniko 3y ago
A mix is the best solution, a stable baseline of nuclear is great for stabilizing the grid. Just get rid of the petrolium, coal and gas.
- mschaef 3y ago
  A mix is the only solution at the moment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
They have one: Diablo Canyon. I understand there are issues, however...
epistasis 3y ago
The problem isn't that nobody wants nuclear in their backyards, lots of people do (the people that already have nuclear in their backyard). The problem with nuclear is the same one that it's always been: it's too expensive. Nobody wants to go bankrupt. Meanwhile we have cheap batteries and super super cheap solar and wind to charge them.
- nradov 3y ago
  Where are the cheap batteries? List prices are gradually coming down but availability remains limited for any large projects. And if you actually want to store a useful amount of energy, that takes a lot more than just a big box full of battery cells.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Where are the cheap batteries? Getting installed right now. Grid assets are usually measured in MW or GW, but multiply by 3-4 to get the GWh. EIA said developers expect to add 30GW in 2024 here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202 Note the 7GW of batteries already in California, 3GW in Texas. Texas will move much more quickly than California now because it's a profit based market with few barriers to entry. There were other estimates in 2024 were for 14.1 GW for this year, but IMHO 30 GW is much more likely: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 We are at the start of an exponential growth curve. As prices fall, more demand appears. There are plans for massive amounts of battery production capacity. BNEF has tracked 7.9TWh/year of planned factory capacity by the end of 2025 (probably only 50%-70% of that will get developed): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-12/china-already-makes-as-many-batteries-as-the-entire-world-wants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-12/china-... However, this is exactly on track with the estimates I heard, 3 years ago now, of 10x growth in production capacity every 5 years. By 2031 we should see 20-30TWH/year of production.
    - hermitdev 3y ago
      So...what's the story with grid-scale battery disposal? Are we heading for another series of super-fund cleanups? That's a lot of toxic material that's going to have to be disposed at end of life.
      - epistasis 3y ago
        It will be recycled, there's tons of recycling facilities that are just waiting for recyclable material to show up. So far it's just defective new batteries that go into them. Plus, they're really not that toxic. Not as bad as fly ash from burning coal, or fracking fluid from natural gas, for example.
gottorf 3y ago
> in my backyard How do you define your "back yard"? I mean, perhaps very few people are willing to literally abut a nuclear power plant, but how far are most people OK with it? Looks like I'm about 150 miles from the nearest one, and about 180 miles from the second-nearest[0]. There's a lot of empty land in the US. Sites suitable for a nuclear plant are definitely more likely to be occupied (due to plants needing to be near bodies of water for cooling), but still, we can probably build a lot more. [0]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/images/US_nuclear_power_plants_map.png https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/images/US_nuclea...
TheFreim 3y ago
> Also, I don't want a nuclear power plant in my backyard. Why would you not want a nuclear power plant near you? I would love to live by one.
- metamet 3y ago
  I lived by one growing up and have a friend who works at the same plant now. We got a subsidy for living within 10 miles. I don't know the details, but basically a "hey sorry if things go wrong" check. The one thing with nuclear that many people seem to either not be aware of under play is the thermal pollution. The heat generated and pumped into the rivers does some gnarly stuff, including affecting the o2 and ph of the water, drastically changing the ecosystem in the area.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
hnburnsy 3y ago
California does have nuclear power literally in its back yard, Palo Verde in Arizona which is partial owned by a number of California entities.
Johnny555 3y ago
While I don't want a nuclear power plant literally in my back yard, I'd rather live 10 miles from a nuclear plant than 10 miles from a fossil fuel plant. I spent the first 25 years of my life (and my parents spent almost their entire lives) living about 15 miles from a nuclear power plant without any issues.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
If we could build nuclear plants as quickly or cheaply as renewables, that'd be a sane solution. Right now nobody can do that, which makes nuclear less of an option. Even China is now building vastly more renewables than nuclear, and they're the world's leaders in building nuclear plants.
- martinbaun 3y ago
  Many countries you can build nuclear plants safe, fast and cheap. The regulation is the problem. Of course some regulation is needed, but nuclear is one of the most overregulated markets in the world.
ec109685 3y ago
Overbuild solar and have sufficient battery capacity is a much better solution.
Axsuul 3y ago
Not really, because the return on investment in nuclear is the elephant in the room. Not only does it require massive expenditures and take years to bring online, it also takes decades for it to become profitable. Not many people are willing to make that investment when the lifecycle of solar and wind are orders of magnitude shorter.

neffy 3y ago

5% nuclear vs 80% renewables on the chart linked. Really, the sane solution is the one that brings down the financial system (debt for existing oil plant and nuclear is substantial, and has decade long write down periods attached to it.)

poniko 3y ago

A mix is the best solution, a stable baseline of nuclear is great for stabilizing the grid. Just get rid of the petrolium, coal and gas.

mschaef 3y ago
A mix is the only solution at the moment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

They have one: Diablo Canyon. I understand there are issues, however...

epistasis 3y ago

The problem isn't that nobody wants nuclear in their backyards, lots of people do (the people that already have nuclear in their backyard). The problem with nuclear is the same one that it's always been: it's too expensive. Nobody wants to go bankrupt. Meanwhile we have cheap batteries and super super cheap solar and wind to charge them.

nradov 3y ago
Where are the cheap batteries? List prices are gradually coming down but availability remains limited for any large projects. And if you actually want to store a useful amount of energy, that takes a lot more than just a big box full of battery cells.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Where are the cheap batteries? Getting installed right now. Grid assets are usually measured in MW or GW, but multiply by 3-4 to get the GWh. EIA said developers expect to add 30GW in 2024 here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202 Note the 7GW of batteries already in California, 3GW in Texas. Texas will move much more quickly than California now because it's a profit based market with few barriers to entry. There were other estimates in 2024 were for 14.1 GW for this year, but IMHO 30 GW is much more likely: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 We are at the start of an exponential growth curve. As prices fall, more demand appears. There are plans for massive amounts of battery production capacity. BNEF has tracked 7.9TWh/year of planned factory capacity by the end of 2025 (probably only 50%-70% of that will get developed): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-12/china-already-makes-as-many-batteries-as-the-entire-world-wants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-12/china-... However, this is exactly on track with the estimates I heard, 3 years ago now, of 10x growth in production capacity every 5 years. By 2031 we should see 20-30TWH/year of production.
  - hermitdev 3y ago
    So...what's the story with grid-scale battery disposal? Are we heading for another series of super-fund cleanups? That's a lot of toxic material that's going to have to be disposed at end of life.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      It will be recycled, there's tons of recycling facilities that are just waiting for recyclable material to show up. So far it's just defective new batteries that go into them. Plus, they're really not that toxic. Not as bad as fly ash from burning coal, or fracking fluid from natural gas, for example.

gottorf 3y ago

> in my backyard How do you define your "back yard"? I mean, perhaps very few people are willing to literally abut a nuclear power plant, but how far are most people OK with it? Looks like I'm about 150 miles from the nearest one, and about 180 miles from the second-nearest[0]. There's a lot of empty land in the US. Sites suitable for a nuclear plant are definitely more likely to be occupied (due to plants needing to be near bodies of water for cooling), but still, we can probably build a lot more. [0]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/images/US_nuclear_power_plants_map.png https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/images/US_nuclea...

TheFreim 3y ago

> Also, I don't want a nuclear power plant in my backyard. Why would you not want a nuclear power plant near you? I would love to live by one.

metamet 3y ago
I lived by one growing up and have a friend who works at the same plant now. We got a subsidy for living within 10 miles. I don't know the details, but basically a "hey sorry if things go wrong" check. The one thing with nuclear that many people seem to either not be aware of under play is the thermal pollution. The heat generated and pumped into the rivers does some gnarly stuff, including affecting the o2 and ph of the water, drastically changing the ecosystem in the area.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

hnburnsy 3y ago

California does have nuclear power literally in its back yard, Palo Verde in Arizona which is partial owned by a number of California entities.

Johnny555 3y ago

While I don't want a nuclear power plant literally in my back yard, I'd rather live 10 miles from a nuclear plant than 10 miles from a fossil fuel plant. I spent the first 25 years of my life (and my parents spent almost their entire lives) living about 15 miles from a nuclear power plant without any issues.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

If we could build nuclear plants as quickly or cheaply as renewables, that'd be a sane solution. Right now nobody can do that, which makes nuclear less of an option. Even China is now building vastly more renewables than nuclear, and they're the world's leaders in building nuclear plants.

martinbaun 3y ago
Many countries you can build nuclear plants safe, fast and cheap. The regulation is the problem. Of course some regulation is needed, but nuclear is one of the most overregulated markets in the world.

ec109685 3y ago

Overbuild solar and have sufficient battery capacity is a much better solution.

Axsuul 3y ago

Not really, because the return on investment in nuclear is the elephant in the room. Not only does it require massive expenditures and take years to bring online, it also takes decades for it to become profitable. Not many people are willing to make that investment when the lifecycle of solar and wind are orders of magnitude shorter.