Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I thought the whole issue with wind and solar is that the storage issue isn't yet solved. Nuclear on the other hand is 70 year old technology that is proven to be capable of being the majority energy source of a nation.



France is at 75% nuclear; we can get to 75% renewables without storage.

And storage is quickly getting solved. California has gone from almost nothing to more than a GW of storage in a year, and is adding more GW at the moment. Even the "free market" in Texas is choosing to add many GW of storage, even more GW of solar and wind, and almost no new natural gas. And in the US, the majority of new solar projects include storage now, because for a long time there has been more DC production power than ability to convert it to AC, and a few hours of storage makes financial sense because storage has gotten so cheap. As it gets cheaper, there will be bigger an bigger amounts of storage added to every renewables project, on site.

Meanwhile we can't build nuclear in Western countries anymore. France can't, the US can't, the UK is likely going to fail.

The problem in the nuclear industry is that they are stuck on getting even first of a kind plants out. The idea of scaling up to hundreds of GW in the next few years is a pipe dream for the us and Europe. Maybe China will be able to build their 150 planned reactors, but even if they do they will be building far far more renewables than that.

The production capacity of modern Western economies is very well suited to wind, solar, and storage. It is absolutely awful at massive construction projects, like nuclear. Construction productivity has barely changed at all since the 1970s, while other fields' productivity has soared. We should take advantage of that.

And this ain't even talking about the new types of super cheap long duration storage that have high energy/power ratios. There's iron batteries in both traditional solid forms and in flow forms. Noe that the market need is becoming apparent, there are new chemistries being developed all the time that are suitable for stationary storage but not as well suited for cars and other mobile applications. Which is fantastic, as we can then reserve all that quickly growing production capacity for transport.


> France is at 75% nuclear;

France is around 70% nuclear and 15% renewable (mainly hydro). Maintaining the same level of emissions would mean going to 85% renewable, not 75%.

> we can get to 75% renewables without storage.

Not unless we build 50GW of fossil fuel plants. Is it what you suggest?


A large part of the solution will come from demand shifting and small scale heat storage at consumer side.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: