|
|
|
|
|
by pydry
1635 days ago
|
|
>If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great Ok. So, what if that already happened? >In the meantime however The meantime is past. Arguably it lasted until latest 2020 which was the last time grid scale batteries were expensive. 2014 was the last time solar or wind were expensive. Meanwhile, if you tried to commission a new nuclear plant now it wouldnt be running until 2030 earliest and possibly later (hinkley point C will take 20 years). A new battery/wind/solar farm usually takes a year and theyre still plunging in price. |
|
Nevertheless nuclear energy is a steady and reliable source of large amounts of energy, just like coal and oil. By having a few of those, the grid operator can greatly decrease their need for grid-scale batteries, thus enabling more grids to deploy them faster, paving the way for more solar/wind.
This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies.
CO2 is the enemy, we must focus on that.
Point well taken about how long the nuclear projects take, that's why natural gas a bridge is important.
I want purely renewable energy just as much as you but I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to build out all the capacity we need in just solar/wind/hydro in the short amount of time we have. Everything that helps, helps. Until the point where it doesn't and then that's the time to address that.