Amazing to me that on a platform that is the epitome of the power of decentralization we don’t see the same advantages with energy production and storage.
I am not in favor of development of nuclear power for 2 reasons:
Uncertain future costs. Building a nuclear reactor is very expensive and takes a long time. The cost curve for renewable production (solar, wind) as well as storage (batteries) has fallen so dramatically in the last decade it’s impossible to make a financial commitment to building a nuclear plant. That’s why there are very few applications in the US (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/new-reactor-map.html) - nobody wants to financially back an investment that is likely a money loser.
Grid security and stability. Having centralized power sources has exposed the US grid to inadequate security and protection from attack (https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/problem-us-power-grid-its-too-vulnerable-attacks#:~:text=Regrettably%2C the electric grid is,matter of short-lived inconvenience.). The solution is decentralization, which occurs naturally when solar/wind and batteries are used for storage. For those arguing battery technology and deployment is inadequate and impossible for grid stabilization, there is an easy solution to this problem - VTG. We are deploying hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of EVs. Vehicle-to-Grid technology can solve the storage problem with renewables very easily and in parallel to the goal of transitioning to renewables.
Are you in favor of shutting down existing nuclear plants in favor of coal? This is for example the action that Germany has taken, supported by the “Green” party
Of course not. Existing serviceable plants should be producing. However, regulation needs to be improved. For example, many of the existing plants in the US have non-functional back up generators and pumps. Nuclear power is theoretically incredibly safe. Unfortunately with deregulation and human’s natural tendency, nuclear power is practically unsafe. My simple goal is to decarbonize in the fastest and cheapest way possible. And that is maximize existing and employ solar/wind/batteries as fast as possible.
I completely agree. At this point it is probably more possible to quickly decarbonize the grid with wind, solar, etc. We should’ve been building nuclear 30 or 40 years ago. At this point it’s too late to replace fossil fuels with nuclear, though we probably ought to build some nuclear for the stability of its output to decrease energy storage needs as we transition to renewables.
Amazing to me that on a platform that is the epitome of the power of decentralization we don’t see the same advantages with energy production and storage.
I am not in favor of development of nuclear power for 2 reasons:
Uncertain future costs. Building a nuclear reactor is very expensive and takes a long time. The cost curve for renewable production (solar, wind) as well as storage (batteries) has fallen so dramatically in the last decade it’s impossible to make a financial commitment to building a nuclear plant. That’s why there are very few applications in the US (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/new-reactor-map.html) - nobody wants to financially back an investment that is likely a money loser.
Grid security and stability. Having centralized power sources has exposed the US grid to inadequate security and protection from attack (https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/problem-us-power-grid-its-too-vulnerable-attacks#:~:text=Regrettably%2C the electric grid is,matter of short-lived inconvenience.). The solution is decentralization, which occurs naturally when solar/wind and batteries are used for storage. For those arguing battery technology and deployment is inadequate and impossible for grid stabilization, there is an easy solution to this problem - VTG. We are deploying hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of EVs. Vehicle-to-Grid technology can solve the storage problem with renewables very easily and in parallel to the goal of transitioning to renewables.
Are you in favor of shutting down existing nuclear plants in favor of coal? This is for example the action that Germany has taken, supported by the “Green” party
Of course not. Existing serviceable plants should be producing. However, regulation needs to be improved. For example, many of the existing plants in the US have non-functional back up generators and pumps. Nuclear power is theoretically incredibly safe. Unfortunately with deregulation and human’s natural tendency, nuclear power is practically unsafe. My simple goal is to decarbonize in the fastest and cheapest way possible. And that is maximize existing and employ solar/wind/batteries as fast as possible.
I completely agree. At this point it is probably more possible to quickly decarbonize the grid with wind, solar, etc. We should’ve been building nuclear 30 or 40 years ago. At this point it’s too late to replace fossil fuels with nuclear, though we probably ought to build some nuclear for the stability of its output to decrease energy storage needs as we transition to renewables.