• MoistCircuits0698@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 days ago

    I agree with the end statement. We should be doing anything we can to reduce fossil fuels.

    We need to think beyond lithium for grid storage. Lithium is great where space is limited as in a house or something similar. There will be multiple technologies that will provide storage on the grid.

    I think the bigger problem for nuclear is reaction time. You need plants that can react quickly to compliment renewables. Storage is handling a lot of this but I don’t know if nuclear could. It is my understanding that base load isn’t really a thing.

    Nuclear is cool. Has its pros and cons. I don’t know if we should be pushing it so hard. It’s too expensive, takes too long to build, and the decommissioning of a plant takes decades. I just don’t see the future for it.

    • maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      Hmm, I think of baseload as the following:

      • Hospitals and emergency services
      • Data centers and communications
      • 24 hour transit needs
      • 24 hour lighting in cities
      • Ventilation, heating/cooling for certain climates

      Some of these can be mitigated significantly, but some of these are just things that really can never be down and have to have like 99.999% reliability. As we electrify, I’m going to be looking at storage solutions for these things and seeing if we really feel confident in that up time and having extra reserves. Engineers usually over design, so if we expect to need like 0.1 gigawatts for a week for emergency services during an abnormal weather event, I would want to plan for 1 gigawatt for two weeks for instance.

      If that can be done with storage, then that’s awesome, and once we start seeing that roll out widely I will stop advocating for the “do both” strategy.