Hell yeah!
And with sodium batteries finally starting to kick off we’re even having more climate friendly batteries to store that energy as well
Are they viable yet for solar for the masses? Last I heard they have such a huge voltage range that they require new/redesigned/other inverters. I haven’t checked in the progress of those recently.
Solar+ batteries is now cheaper than nuclear. I’m a fan of nuclear but it’s no longer needed.
Also it would take too long to build the nuclear plants. I’m all for building them but they’ll take like 10+ years. In the meantime we need to use solar/wind + batteries.
We could have avoided burning a ton of fossil fuels if nuclear hadn’t been demonized in the 60’s, but as it stands, that ship has sailed. Let’s skip that stage on the tech tree and move to fully renewable!
Edit: I guess I should say that I think nuclear will and should continue to be a pivotal part of any smart grid for a long time, since it fills a niche that “true” renewables can’t yet. I just don’t think pushing to build them now is ideal, as it’s more pressing to decommission all fossil fuels plants ASAP by any means necessary (which might mean using only the existing nuclear plants while we ramp up production of other green energy sources)
I think you are touching on something important in your edit, which is that diversity of energy source is important for long term grid stability. Solar+battery storage is looking really good right now and I completely agree we need to get on that asap. But there’s no magic bullet, no one technology that negates the need for any other. Headlines inherently reduce complex issues into bite sized information, but it’s important for science literacy to remember that things are complex and nuanced! We need wind and solar and hydroelectric and energy storage and nuclear and more.
I agree. With the cost reduction on renewables, grid-scale nuclear doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore.
However, I hope that nuclear will get a revival with SMR technology. Especially as local power facilities for things like data centers and auto plants and other industrial facilities that require as much power as a small nation.
The main advantage of nuclear is the steady production of power that does not need to be stored and can be used on demand by the grid.
Solar is great but we will need an alternative to form the backbone of our grid until energy storage advances. Nuclear is a great contender for them to get away from natural gas.
Batteries give stability to the grid. It doesn’t matter where the generation comes from as long as it’s there.
Worrying that batteries drain is like worrying that your fuel rods deplete (they have a 6 year lifespan)- You build the capacity so it’s never a problem.
I’m not saying that batteries don’t I’m just saying they don’t have the current technology to be the backbone of our grid.
The issue with batteries currently is that they aren’t able to ramp up and down instantly despite what it may seem, so sudden spikes in usage can’t be addressed, a pivotal part of electric grid infrastructure.
Meanwhile, TVA (powering huge portions of the Eastern U.S.) is doubling down on fossil fuels, and isn’t even putting any meaningful effort into solar. 🤦♂️
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/climate/tennessee-valley-authority-biden-climate.html
The market will dictate what happens long term. Solar will continue to drop in price and most fossil fuel usage will drop as a result.
No mention of the NEM 3 changes that spurred solar companies to push batteries as part of the solar offerings due to massive solar credit increases at specific times but massive reductions at others. Completely changed the landscape around solar installs.
For rooftop, definitely. But those were (at peak) only about 5% of annual solar installs in California. It’s almost all utility-scale.
What do you do when there’s no sun/wind?
What do you do when there’s no fuel or breathable air?