Hacker News Reader

Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

As I said, order of magnitude error.

> has built

But enough?

Global battery manufacturers have invested so much that they can take total battery capacity to more than 5,500 GWh by by 2030. US would need something like 3000 Gwh of energy storage to replace the base load. (within days, then few weeks). It would would be insane misuse of resources.

View on HN

A negligible fraction of utility-scale storage will be batteries, so battery capacity hardly matters.

In 2021 US power consumption was 3.93 PWh. 5500 GWh is a bit over 12 hours of consumption. Not gonna cut it. And that's assuming 100% of the batteries are used for grid storage, and there is no demand growth in the next 8 years.

With Vogtle 3 & 4, the only nuclear plants coming online in the US, the construction costs are now projected to be $30 billion for 2.2 GW. We'd need ~1000 of these size plants to power the US. That's not going to cut it either.

You mathed wrong. You would need a little over 200, but no one is suggesting powering the whole grid with nuclear.

and no one suggested we run the entire grid on PV/batteries, except you.

Vogtle will be cancelled before completion. That many $billions for 2GW is nothing short of pathetic.

It cannot be cancelled soon enough.

I doubt that. It's too close to completion, sadly for the ratepayers in Georgia.

I guess they can mothball it afterward.

Why should they? The state utility regulators approved it, so it's going into the rate base. That's not a competitive electricity market down there in the Southeast.

They could disapprove it. Maybe elect better government, first?

Nuclear is needed for base load, not for all electricity needs.

Nuclear is the most cost effective way to achieve base load.

Neither of these statements is true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com