Days before President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office and took actions to stall the transition to clean energy, a disaster unfolded on the other side of the country that may have an outsize effect on the pace of the transition.
A fire broke out last Thursday at the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California, one of the largest battery energy storage systems in the world. The fire raged through the weekend, forcing local officials to evacuate nearby homes and close roads.
Battery storage is an essential part of the transition away from fossil fuels. It works in tandem with solar and wind power to provide electricity during periods when the renewable resources aren’t available. But lithium-ion batteries, the most common technology used in storage systems, are flammable. And if they catch fire, it can be difficult to extinguish.
Last week’s fire is the latest and largest of several at the Moss Landing site in recent years, and I expect that it will become the main example opponents of carbon-free electricity use to try to stop battery development in other places.
too expensive compared to what?
SMRs specifically are a new developing technology. I suppose it’s possible they are all hype, but with many big tech firms investing in them to power datacenters, I tend to think there’s a good chance they’ll work out in the end. China’s first SMR will be up and running soon, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
Renewables + Storage + Grid.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s good to sink so much money in this, we could build more renewables instead. But you’re right, we will see
again in France specifically I agree pivoting to more renewables makes sense because they already have an abundance of nuclear. But if we look at the earth as a whole, renewables don’t work everywhere, they take up a lot of space, and will require a TON of storage to provide reliable power during peak and off-peak usage. If you actually factor in all that grid storage and distributed infrastructure needed for renewables the overall cost difference to nuclear is not nearly as bad as the usual LCOE calculations make it seem since 100% of nuclear’s cost is baked in up front.
Where do renewables not work? I’d say they work at even more places, because you don’t need such a developed infrastructure to set it up. Everyone can wire up a small solar farm after a few hours of YouTube, i wouldn’t trust myself with reactor maintenance.
Nuclear also needs storage for peaks. You don’t want to have to build enough nuclear for peak production which then gets shut down all the time, driving up your LCOE. You want your expensive plant to run all the time. Also you need storage if you have an unplanned maintenance, because then you lose a relevant percentage of production with little to no warning.
And storage is getting cheaper and better every year. The bigger issue would be a grid that can shovel power from one end of a continent to the other in case of adverse weather.
We need less space for solar to power the world than we use for golf courses right now, so I’d say landuse is a non issue. Because you can use roofs and such even less.
the sun doesn’t shine and wind doesn’t blow consistently everywhere. especially in winter the farther you get from the equator.
of course, but even if we put solar on every rooftop in the world that won’t solve our energy demands.
I never said you should. from the beginning I said we need nuclear for the baseline which will help reduce the need for grid storage. yes, some grid storage will be needed.
so would nuclear if we actually did it and improved regulatory inefficiencies.
land use isn’t an issue in rural places, but it absolutely is in more densely populated places near cities and datacenter hubs. The world is not homogenous.
Don’t forget hydro, look at Norway, it’s pretty far away from the equator but has almost 100% renewables. Island as well. There are suboptimal locations, but in the end there is no country which can’t use renewables for all electricity needs.
All rooftops should be enough but parking lots and agrarsolar would be also solutions. So even if we only use solar (which we don’t ) it should be possible.
Renewables create a base load, the problem are demand peaks following overcast days. And there npps don’t help.
Maybe, but not fast enough. We need the power immediately and battery are already in the steep part of their growth phase. We can’t spend several decades learning how to do it right. Then we could also just wait for fusion.
Then we use power lines like we do already. Most power plants right now are also not in cities, so I don’t understand the argument. Would you also want to build the npps in/near cities?
everywhere that can use hydro already has. you can’t just create new rivers to dam up, so that isn’t an option to address our growing electricity needs.
yes I was mistaken about that, point acknowledged.
this is not uncontested, plenty of people disagree.
we have been saying this for decades and I guarantee you we will still be saying in in another decade. Also, renewables aren’t fast to connect to the grid either. The more we spin up the bigger the backlog will be connecting new installations to the grid.
luckily we have a whole planet of people with various interests and expertise. Like it or not, there are going to be people working on nuclear, you can’t just wave a wand and make them all work on solar or wind. it would be extremely short sighted to outright eliminate one potential clean source of energy when we are so far behind on the issue.
longer power lines means more efficiency losses, and the more you plan to roll out renewables to 100% the more inefficiencies there will be. as previously stated, connecting large brand new renewable installations to the grid is expensive and also takes a long time.
But you always have a combination of several renewable sources which can power these countries.
Yeah, i know. Time will tell.
Sorry but that is just not true. The growth of solar has almost been logarithmic and the installed capacity was almost non-existent two decades ago. That just doesn’t compare to the snails pace of nuclear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
Also, it’s not about people, but money. Every euro spent on some tech bro nuclear startup could be used to install real capacity instead.
Yeah, theoretically true, but what distances are we talking about? To get electricity from the suburbs in the city center should be trivial. It gets more difficult if we have to cross countries, but high voltage DC solves that issue pretty well. We could power europe from solar installed in the Sahara ^^