• Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You should search the term grid scale storage and get back to me with a viable solution.

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          creating nuclear plants is worse. nuclear plants have a conversion rate from thermal to electrical energy of around 35% So for every kWh you receive from your socket almost 2 kWh are used to heat or evaporate water. That is more environmental damage than a pumping reservoir.

          Also the premise is wrong. We dont need the same amount of storage so we can continue using electricity like before.

          Most electrical use can be sheduled to align with the availability of energy in the grid. The sun is up at noon? good time to do laundry and dishes. There is a steady wind tonight? Preheat the water in the tank and no need to heat in the morning.

          The same can be done for many industrial applications. It just requires innovation and investments, which is why they rather lobby for destroying the planet.

          • saigot@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well since your arguments depend on niche and experimental technology I don’t see why Nuclear proponents can’t either. The waste heat from nuclear energy is only a concern when it is contained within water, which is pretty easy to use for warming houses or providing houses with warm water. There are already cities that do this. This has huge efficiency savings. https://www.powermag.com/district-heating-supply-from-nuclear-power-plants/

            This all seems a bit theoretical to me. The important thing is to stop fossil fuels right now. If we use a nuclear plant to buy us 50yrs to find renewable alternatives for the specific conditions of the site in question I say go for it. Every location has unique needs here, we can’t look at any one technology as a golden bullet for every problem everywhere. We don’t have the decades needed for huge innovation and cultural changes to support smart grids like you describe.

            • Mangosniper@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              We proooooibably could do that if everyone agrees and we all do it together everywhere of the world. Will that happen? No. So we can not agree on that and therefore no big nuclear Masterplan will be build.

              Let’s say we also try to get everyone on the full renewable boat, try really hard. Will that work so that everybody agrees? No. So as we can not agree on that no renewables will be built. Wait… Stop… That’s wrong. I still can built renewables even alone on my house. And here is the difference. For the nuclear plan we would almost all all over the world have to agree to make it work. For renewables, it will happen, because we can do it right here right now, everywhere, large scale, small scale. Doesn’t matter. It’s like with gravity and religion. For religion to “work” you need to believe. Gravity will work, if you believe it or not. That’s what gives me at least a little bit hope, renewables are so fucking good, they are unstoppable by now. Question is just if we are fast enough.

              • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t want to be excretingly pedantic but I mean f*** it give me a couple hundred fire alarms and I’ll have enough Americanium to start a breeder reactor.

      • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Silly me I didn’t realize we were just going to install mountains every time we needed a battery. Unfortunately most of humanity lives on the coast unfortunately most of the coast is flat…

        Furthermore we would still need to increase a renewable production by over 60% before we would be able to maintain base load and even need the pump storage but go on.

        • SternburgExport@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Our country barely has any coast. And we’re done with nuclear anyway, so that sounds like a you problem.

          • Honytawk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A “you” problem that is solved through … nuclear power generation.

            Now you get it!

      • Hugohase@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And hydrogen, and batteries, and overbuilding, and geographic distribution and a lot more but nukeheads gonna nukehead.

        • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do not think you comprehend how much power would need to be stored. We are steadily electrifying every single industry year after year we use more and more electricity to power that demand we are burning more fossil fuels than ever before while in conjunction utilizing more renewables than ever before well maintaining the same average nuclear load for the last 20 years…

          • Hugohase@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Renewables and storage is what is gonna happen, you can argue against that as much as you want. Growth of renewables is exponential, growth of nuclear is nonexistent.

            • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I swear to God you’re going to kill me with an aneurysm. It’s only non-existent because of dumbasses like you. Like facts I also do not give a single fuck about your feelings. We are at a tipping point. We cannot scale renewable production to the point we would need to scale it to In a short enough time for them to be a viable solution alone. Therefore we need to continue to implement renewables while also replacing the most egregious CO2 contributors such as coal fired plants with reactors.

              • Hugohase@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Its nonexistent because its expensive and impractical. Every cent spent for nuclear is a wasted cent because you would get twice the power from renewables. LCOE.

                • Honytawk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you not get about the world not being able to produce enough renewables to switch over completely yet?

                  You can’t just throw money against a problem and hope that it is fixed.

                  Nuclear is a necessary stepping stone until we go to full 100% renewables

                  • Hugohase@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You get it wrong, the world is not able to build enough nuclear. Sometime In the next 18 months the world will have the capacity to produce one TW of solar panels per year. Thats around 50 times the capacity of the nuclear reactors that have been built in the best year of the nuclear buildout. Which means around 8 to 9 times the amount of electricity.
                    So yeah… and we are talking about the best year…

              • Rooty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Give it up man, I’ve had clashes with renewabots, and they are adamant that we can run the entire grid on tinker toys and batteries.

                • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The sad part is they’re not wrong they’re just 80 to 100 years out of scope. The theory is there it’s the capacity to produce and the inability to store that kills it. Also I know I’m not convincing him. The point of comment threads like this is for the people who are uninformed and undecided as of yet.

    • Mangosniper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How about a mixture of batteries (redox-flow, LiFePo, NaFePO, iron-air, Li-Ion), thermal storage (porous volcanic stone, heated water, liquid salt), mechanical storage (giant rotating masses, compressed air), pumped hydroelectrical storage, power-to-gas or power to liquid(hydrogen or ammonia) and creating interconnected power grids?

      That should do. Would not create a single point of failure and prevent having everything in the hands of probably a single entity.

      • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I agree that we need to pursue energy storage solutions In addition to investing in renewables and nuclear. I feel that it would be staggeringly inefficient to have to harvest and store and then redistribute power at the scale you are describing. The power loss and transmission alone from generation to battery to end user would be over 30% most likely. And at that point It’s far more efficient to directly energize the consumer with an on-demand source such as a nuclear power plant.