4 ms·
I think solar plus storage will likely be the better play. I think nuclear is a thing we should have done fifty years ago in spades. I'm not sure it's a thing
by horsawlarway 1y ago
I think solar plus storage will likely be the better play.
I think nuclear is a thing we should have done fifty years ago in spades.
I'm not sure it's a thing we should do today when the economics behind solar are just so, so much stronger.
I'd really love to see this investment go to storage projects instead.
Battery tech finally seems to be moving, and I'd like to see the US be able to make plays on the LFP/Sodium battery fronts far more than I want overpriced power from nuclear.
- zbrozek 1y agoI suspect solar + batteries will be dominant (but should not be the exclusive source) in places which get relatively good sun even in the winter. California and Hawaii, for example, will do pretty well with a mix that is heavy on those technologies. But if you're in North Dakota or Alaska and want to electrify your grid, you might not have a good time in December and January. There's arguments to be made about having more transmission so you can move electricity from one place to another, but that's also expensive and difficult to build and comes with downsides like vulnerability to natural disasters and attack along a much longer path. Or, as in California, the transmission is its own latent source of disaster that can immolate the state.
- mcosta 1y agoSolar plus storage did not work in Spain.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoOne of the notable elements of the Spanish grid was how little battery it had. Their hydro and solar thermal and nuclear spinning plants made them feel they didn't need it as much and they'd dragged their feet on integrating it. Most likely outcome of the recent issues, lots more batteries.