Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by ElectronCharge on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @12:50PM (#31755742)

It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power.

The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat.

Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by dane-pgp on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @01:39PM (#31756456)

> “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events

Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by ncmncm on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @04:26PM (#31758990)

Anytime local storage runs low and transmission line capacity is exceeded, you order a shipment of synthetic ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics. There will be plenty competing for your business.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by pfdietz on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @01:29PM (#31756302)

That's what hydrogen (stored underground at a storage capacity cost of $1/kWh) is for.

[ Parent | on HN ]