Get those construction contacts signed!

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, renewables cannot do it alone

    They absolutely can when paired with storage. Nuclear is not needed.

    • lntlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Storage? Like battery storage? Lead? Lithium? Go on, tell me more.

      Or will we flood river valleys? What are you thinking?

        • lntlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I took graduate level courses in storage with these technologies at scale. Neat that this knowledge is useful again.

          Pumped and compressed require specific geologic formations. Most of the sites for pumped have already been developed in NA. There’s room for growth for compressed, but compressed also suffers from losses when the air that’s pumped into the crust cools. Hopefully, there are undeveloped compressed sites near regions with energy demands.

          Flywheels are a neat idea and still just that: an idea. It’s yet to been demonstrated they can reliably do more than grid frequency moderation. The reason it’s not very attractive to investors is that we don’t have materials to match the energy density of other technologies.

          Green hydrogen is also just an idea at the present. Nobody’s pursues this because of losses incurred generating hydrogen from water. I want this one to work!

          Finally, batteries. Do you think there are enough metals on the planet to build enough batteries for current and future demand?

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is your contention that a combination of all the methods I listed is insufficient for a renewable future that doesn’t include nuclear?

            • lntlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, nuclear is the only one that’s sufficiently developed, with a supply chain that’s sufficiently developed, that’s ready for deployment right now.

              The others could get there some day, and I hope they do, but we cannot wait for that.

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You have it backwards. Each new nuclear plant is essentially bespoke, that’s why they cost so much. It’s wind and solar that have an established supply chain.

                • lntlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think we’re misunderstanding. Nukes, like wind and solar, are made out of concrete and steel which have developed supply chains. It’s the storage part that is not developed for renewables.

                  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You need to look into how nuclear plants are built. They’re custom made for each site, there’s no supply chain there. Why do you think they nearly always end up over budget and behind schedule? A robust supply chain prevents those things.

                    By your logic I could say that pumped hydro storage has a robust supply chain because dams can be made out of concrete.

            • PowerCrazy
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not. We HAVE to have baseline power generation. Today that comes by either burning fossil fuels, or nuclear, with hydro/geo etc making up a trivial percentage. Only oil industry propaganda conflates nuclear with solar/wind.

    • PowerCrazy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another person who doesn’t understand power-grids being anti-nuclear, wow!