News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched. Parent comment

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:50PM (#26348903)
Do you know why California is using batteries instead of cheaper nuclear? Is it just for cynical political reasons?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by fallingknife on Thursday March 04, 2021 @06:09PM (#26349814)
No one is using batteries at a large scale at this point.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @06:46PM (#26350188)
User "jeffbee" said that California has 250MW of battery facilities right now
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by fallingknife on Thursday March 04, 2021 @07:49PM (#26350852)
I assume that's 250MWh, and California consumes 260 TWh per year, so that's 30s of power consumption.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by jeffbee on Thursday March 04, 2021 @08:15PM (#26351118)
No, it's 250MW of peak power. I'm not sure what the total energy storage capacity is for California, but the typical project has 4 hours of capacity.

For an example please see this PG&E project which is coming online in Summer 2021. These installations have 700MW of power capacity and each has a 4-hour discharge time.

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_582...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by fallingknife on Friday March 05, 2021 @12:05AM (#26352960)
You're right about the numbers, but still this is tiny at the scale of the grid. 2.8GWh is still only around 5 mins of consumption. You would probably need a few days of storage to run a 100% wind/solar grid, so that's about 1000x more.
[ Parent | on HN ]