Get those construction contacts signed!

  • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
    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?

      • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
        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?

          • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
            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.

              • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
                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.

                  • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nuclear plants are built like every other building is built: construction. “Construction” is what happens after the “supply chain” delivers the material. It assembles the materials into the thing. They’re related and different concepts.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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.