Mrdarknezz

So far there is no proven technology that scales to grid level? We are closer to achieving fusion than large scale energy storage.

Well it doesn't really change the fact that batteries: 1. Doesn't scale to grid level 2. Isn't interchangeable with firm energy sources

Battery costs are literally rising

Batteries are not cheaper than nuclear.

Batteries is not an alternative to firm energy, you still need firm energy to balance the grid wether it's from nuclear/hydro/geo or fossil.

That's why all decarbonized grids have hydro/nuclear as their main source of energy.

Energy storage is the monorail of energy technology, expensive, unnecessary and conventional technologies like nuclear, hydro and geothermal is better in every regard.

Well there won't be many towns left unless we start to build alot more nuclear thanks to climate change.

Nope Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy production https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-a...

You can't replace Nuclear with intermittent energy, they serve different function. So far the cheapest and the largest deployment of green energy has come from Nuclear and Hydro.

This comment got the same energy as this comment that dropbox could just be replaced by an FTP https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Yet so far it's the most effective system we have to transfer value

No, intermittent energy can't load follow since it's intermittent. You can see this mostly in europe where those that keept nuclear online has cheaper grids that those that didn't. Especially true for this is in germany

Yet this "myth" is what has lead to countries with heavy amounts of green baseloads being able to decarbonize and those without are still struggling.

The failure of the Germany energiewende is a great example, Californias struggle is another.

Well I think comparing intermittent energy with baseload energy 1:1 is kind of unfair since they fill different functions in the grid. It's cheaper and less risky to produce a bike than a train. Both are a means of transportation but you can't replace trains with bikes or bikes with trains.

So far there is no real life example of what you are suggesting. The only countries that has gone green include either nuclear or hydro in their mix. Storage + Intermittent is not enough to power a modern grid. Also yes you do need to always meet demand to ensure the frequency is stable, otherwise you'll have massive problems.

... What?

You still need some sort of baseload to support wind/solar. That can come in the form of Hydro/nuclear if you want to decarbonize or do like germany and build massive amounts of gas.

"these renewables can generate electricity at much lower costs than fossil fuels and, especially, nuclear power. In the United States, unsubsidized wind power costs fell by 71 percent between 2009 and 2020, whereas unsubsidized utility scale solar energy costs declined by 90 percent during the same period."

This was a weird take from the author since NPP aren't interchangeable with Wind/solar-parks.

Seems more like a nuclear hit piece than an actual attack on lobbyism.

Yeah like every other technology it will either ultimately prove its worth or fade into obscurity like everything else. I just don't see the point with these extreme viewpoints.

Yeah there sure seems to be alot of scams. But the idea that it would dismiss everything related to the blockchain seems like taking it a step too far in the other direction? I'm no expert but I get extreme flashback of the era when PHP was considered radioactive garbage and any attempts of nuance was struck down

I'm not sure when it happened but all of suddenly the discussion on anything related to blockchain became very black and white. Anyone that tries to nuance the topic gets immediately called out as favouring this or that.

It's time for a nuclear expansion so we can transition out of our fossil dependency.

Almost sounds like a paradox

Germany have not took any steps to increase their clean non-intermittent energy sources. Until they do they will be stuck with gas.

Well building a battery factory in EUs worst CO2 polluter kinda makes no sense from an environmental viewpoint. Better to build it in Sweden or France which have a heavy Nuclear/Hydro mix in their grid.

It'd be better if they'd start an energy company that produces hydrogen only from nuclear and wind instead. That way it would be sustainable and promote important sustainable energy sources.

Yes that is produced mostly by Natural gas. During 2020 the mix was ~99.2% Naturalgas and 0.8% wind. Producing hydrogren from naturalgas puts the CO2 footprint at around the same as coal since per kwh hydrogen you need to input double the amount of energy.

Pretty sure that an organization that pushes the idea that Gas is renewable and Nuclear is bad for the environment really isn't something we can trust in any issues relating to the environment.

People will just buy another phone? The total CO2 footprint will most likely be higher without the 12

If you want to talkt about emissions instead here is a great summary from the Swedish Life cycle analysis by energy source: Nuclear: 6g CO2/kwh Hydro: 9g CO2/kwh Wind: 13g CO2/kwh Solar: 24g CO2/kwh

This includes everything from construction to mining. The data comes from Swedens state run energy company Vattenfall LCA report https://www.vattenfall.se/foretag/miljo/epd/ and here is a an article that summarizes it https://blog.karnfull.se/blog/kaernkraftslogik-1-klimatsmart