Comment on Spicy Air ☢️
Redjard@reddthat.com 5 days agoI’ll try to find some more sources later, for now I only have appeal to authority, sorry. I took a lecture on modern grid design for renewables and had a lot of coverage specifically on the state of renewable profuction and storage and the pricing.
At a cursory look the numbers online are hard to parse because articles usually are not clear on the specifics they base their costsbon, like what sort of stability the renewables can achieve at a stated cost. From what I have seen a lotnof numbers do have to be about still varying supply over the day and accross seasons.
There is another argument (that used to be used before this recent price crossover), which maybe makes it easier to accept without up to date numbers: Because of the long build-time, you can buy the batteries 10 years from now, comparing to a nuclear plant that starts construction today. Surely you can see that the battery improvements over the next decades, specifically for grid batteries, will be huge. Currently batteries are still often very similar to car batteries, there are entirely new chemistries that will be in production 10 years down the line.
It’s not like I am saying we should scrap ongoing constructions.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Sure, but that’s a shitty comparison, because I can also build 20 nuclear powerplants, and bring costs WAY down. And that’s the thing. These comparisons are always “If we keep boosting X, and supressing Y, then X will perform better!”. Yes. Duh.
Look at what China is doing. They’ve built dozens of plants in the past years, and have >30 under construction right now, with ~150 planned. They’re building them for a fraction of the cost, because they’re not completely reinventing them every single time.
Fair, we shouldn’t. But my worry is that even in 10 years, we’re still going to be using lots of fossil fuels, and that will always be lower if we ALSO build nuclear. Or at the very least stop heavily opposing it.