4 ms·

What's the ROI on that versus current and near-term expected pricing for solar+storage? Is fission getting safer/cheaper at the same rate that solar and batter

by sneak 2y ago

What's the ROI on that versus current and near-term expected pricing for solar+storage? Is fission getting safer/cheaper at the same rate that solar and batteries are?

greenavocado 2y ago
I wonder if it would make sense to make ultra heavy spent nuclear fuel into gigantic flywheels for short-term grid energy storage
- myrmidon 1y ago
  No. Because flywheels are not limited by material density, they are limited by centrifugal force. High density is actively bad, you want to maximize strength and minimize density for flywheel designs, and this makes you much more likely to end up with low density composites (rather than high density tungsten alloys or somesuch).
UltraSane 2y ago
Solar + days of storage is far more expensive than fission. Grid scale batteries like California has spent billions on only have 4 hour capacity. Fission can also supply heat that is needed for many industrial processes and chemical reactions.
- Calwestjobs 2y ago
  it is not in most us areas. only problem is area covered, NOT price of technology. solar with 12 hour of storage was lower price than fission before covid hit. TCO, not one time nonsense. fission has relatively low temperature heat, i.e. no metal reduction, no "concrete" production. you can cook hot dogs with it. also electrification of heat can provide lower losses stemming from regulation or lack thereof. with electricity you can say i need 293.5 degrees C and you just type it somewhere and you get it for almost free (regulation).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    I am no fan of fission (I strongly oppose new fission plants). But one problem with solar+storage is that the cost of the storage component increases roughly linearly with the desired storage duration. That's not true of a fueled power plant (fission or fossil).
    - actinium226 1y ago
      Just curious, what makes you oppose new fission plants? Do you think existing ones should be closed before their scheduled end-of-life?
      - worik 1y ago
        I will bite. There are any problems with fission that are all related to the extraordinary danger of handling the fuel, byproducts, and the sites themselves. The cost of them is huge, some people are hoping that modularity will help with construction, but it is still astonishingly expensive. The problems of handling the fuel has been solved, in theory and practise. Except when commerce is involved. When the money people get involved corners will get cut, and we are back to incredible danger. Technically solvable, but I would not go near it. I have known too many business people. The problem of the long-term waste is entirely beyond us. There has been no practical progress on this front. Long term waste (including some parts of the assemblies themselves) are very dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This is, with current technology that can be bought to bear, unsolvable. The only thing we can do is put it in a stable site, be ready to move it when the site becomes unstable (nowhere on Earth is known to be stable on such time scales), and find a way of communication, across thousands of generations, just how poisonous this stuff is. Maybe our ancestors will get lucky and find a way to safely dispose of it.... So fission power is making future generations pay for today's consumption. Fortunately for us it is moot. The costs of renewables is dropped to the point that the only reason for fission is to build the capacity for nuclear weapons.
        UltraSane 1y ago
- aurizon 1y ago
  There are a number of flow batteries, where they have large vats where charge is stored in 2 discrete charge state fluids in a redox reaction. They charge a vat through a cell and discharge it in the other direction. Limits are solubility of the charge states in the transport fluid = huge vats for total watt-hours and huge redox cells for rate of charge/discharge. Runs well and vats are cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

by sneak 2y ago

What's the ROI on that versus current and near-term expected pricing for solar+storage? Is fission getting safer/cheaper at the same rate that solar and batteries are?

greenavocado 2y ago

I wonder if it would make sense to make ultra heavy spent nuclear fuel into gigantic flywheels for short-term grid energy storage

myrmidon 1y ago
No. Because flywheels are not limited by material density, they are limited by centrifugal force. High density is actively bad, you want to maximize strength and minimize density for flywheel designs, and this makes you much more likely to end up with low density composites (rather than high density tungsten alloys or somesuch).

UltraSane 2y ago

Solar + days of storage is far more expensive than fission. Grid scale batteries like California has spent billions on only have 4 hour capacity. Fission can also supply heat that is needed for many industrial processes and chemical reactions.

Calwestjobs 2y ago
it is not in most us areas. only problem is area covered, NOT price of technology. solar with 12 hour of storage was lower price than fission before covid hit. TCO, not one time nonsense. fission has relatively low temperature heat, i.e. no metal reduction, no "concrete" production. you can cook hot dogs with it. also electrification of heat can provide lower losses stemming from regulation or lack thereof. with electricity you can say i need 293.5 degrees C and you just type it somewhere and you get it for almost free (regulation).
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  I am no fan of fission (I strongly oppose new fission plants). But one problem with solar+storage is that the cost of the storage component increases roughly linearly with the desired storage duration. That's not true of a fueled power plant (fission or fossil).
  - actinium226 1y ago
    Just curious, what makes you oppose new fission plants? Do you think existing ones should be closed before their scheduled end-of-life?
    - worik 1y ago
      I will bite. There are any problems with fission that are all related to the extraordinary danger of handling the fuel, byproducts, and the sites themselves. The cost of them is huge, some people are hoping that modularity will help with construction, but it is still astonishingly expensive. The problems of handling the fuel has been solved, in theory and practise. Except when commerce is involved. When the money people get involved corners will get cut, and we are back to incredible danger. Technically solvable, but I would not go near it. I have known too many business people. The problem of the long-term waste is entirely beyond us. There has been no practical progress on this front. Long term waste (including some parts of the assemblies themselves) are very dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This is, with current technology that can be bought to bear, unsolvable. The only thing we can do is put it in a stable site, be ready to move it when the site becomes unstable (nowhere on Earth is known to be stable on such time scales), and find a way of communication, across thousands of generations, just how poisonous this stuff is. Maybe our ancestors will get lucky and find a way to safely dispose of it.... So fission power is making future generations pay for today's consumption. Fortunately for us it is moot. The costs of renewables is dropped to the point that the only reason for fission is to build the capacity for nuclear weapons.
      - UltraSane 1y ago
aurizon 1y ago
There are a number of flow batteries, where they have large vats where charge is stored in 2 discrete charge state fluids in a redox reaction. They charge a vat through a cell and discharge it in the other direction. Limits are solubility of the charge states in the transport fluid = huge vats for total watt-hours and huge redox cells for rate of charge/discharge. Runs well and vats are cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery