3 ms·

> There is storage for that There literally isn't, it doesn't exist.

by lupusreal 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago
In the same sense this reactor doesn't exist?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Yes, anybody speaking as though this reactor already exists is wrong.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Well HPC exists, it's not operational yet (and won't be before several years) but it does exist. And equivalent storage doesn't exist not as a WIP, not even as a project.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Storage can go from planned to installed in a very short time, much shorter than a nuclear power plant, so that doesn't mean much. Storage prices are declining and installs are expanding with short time constants as well. The whole skeptical approach here smells strongly of ignoring rapid exponential change, which is pretty remarkable for a SV associated forum like HN.
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        > Storage can go from planned to installed in a very short time, No it cannot, when you start building large hazardous (because of fire risk) facilities, then you face the same kind of red tape that you face with any big projects. Storage also requires adapting the electric grid to allow the energy to flow from and to the storage facilities. Believing storage is easy is just magical thinking. Nuclear isn't different, it's just big by default. And the French example in the 80s shows that building mass nuclear from scratch is in fact tractable in under two decades.
davedx 2y ago
https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-continues-for-battery-storage-in-uk-and-ireland-co-location-emerging/ https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-con... > current operational capacity of 4.6GW/5.9GWh Perhaps do some research before you speak of things you have no idea about
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  Yeah, that's why California with >10GW of installed battery is not using gas/not importing at all in off peak hours... Oh wait
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    I know it is hard to grasp trends when you are dead set on seeing nuclear power as the only solution, but maybe look at the curves? California has vastly reduced the fossil gas usage due to storage. It will only continue. Are they done? No, are we seeing massive change year by year? Yes. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      I do certainly see how batteries are extending the renewables supply. I also see that there's still a lot of work to do: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO
- protomolecule 2y ago
  Which means it can give back 4.6GW for approximately an hour and 15 minutes. After that it is empty.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > 5.9GWh In other words, energy storage to match what the nuke plant will be able to put out 24/7 literally doesn't exist.

> There is storage for that There literally isn't, it doesn't exist.

pfdietz 2y ago

In the same sense this reactor doesn't exist?

lupusreal 2y ago
Yes, anybody speaking as though this reactor already exists is wrong.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Well HPC exists, it's not operational yet (and won't be before several years) but it does exist. And equivalent storage doesn't exist not as a WIP, not even as a project.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Storage can go from planned to installed in a very short time, much shorter than a nuclear power plant, so that doesn't mean much. Storage prices are declining and installs are expanding with short time constants as well. The whole skeptical approach here smells strongly of ignoring rapid exponential change, which is pretty remarkable for a SV associated forum like HN.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > Storage can go from planned to installed in a very short time, No it cannot, when you start building large hazardous (because of fire risk) facilities, then you face the same kind of red tape that you face with any big projects. Storage also requires adapting the electric grid to allow the energy to flow from and to the storage facilities. Believing storage is easy is just magical thinking. Nuclear isn't different, it's just big by default. And the French example in the 80s shows that building mass nuclear from scratch is in fact tractable in under two decades.

davedx 2y ago

https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-continues-for-battery-storage-in-uk-and-ireland-co-location-emerging/ https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-con... > current operational capacity of 4.6GW/5.9GWh Perhaps do some research before you speak of things you have no idea about

Moldoteck 2y ago
Yeah, that's why California with >10GW of installed battery is not using gas/not importing at all in off peak hours... Oh wait
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  I know it is hard to grasp trends when you are dead set on seeing nuclear power as the only solution, but maybe look at the curves? California has vastly reduced the fossil gas usage due to storage. It will only continue. Are they done? No, are we seeing massive change year by year? Yes. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    I do certainly see how batteries are extending the renewables supply. I also see that there's still a lot of work to do: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-CAL-CISO
protomolecule 2y ago
Which means it can give back 4.6GW for approximately an hour and 15 minutes. After that it is empty.
lupusreal 2y ago
> 5.9GWh In other words, energy storage to match what the nuke plant will be able to put out 24/7 literally doesn't exist.