ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 5:54 AM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #169

scythe wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they're impractical ( you need massive space This isn't even close to true. A lithium-ion battery can store roughly 1 megajoule per liter, which I'm going to use because it makes the math easier. (Other batteries are slightly less dense, but the correction factor is small). Total global energy consumption is around 1 exajoule per day. That's a trillion liters to store a day's worth of energy, or one billion cubic me…

"Just build a 10m tall San Francisco sized battery farm lol smh" Congratulations on suggesting the most impractical, stupidly dangerous (mmmmh battery fires), impossible to make, single point of failure. At least it won't be attacked because it only lasts a single day anyways. Stick to philosophy and let actual engineers build a grid, thank you.

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 5:56 AM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #167

ncmncm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we have more renewable generating capacity online, four hours is plenty. As the share of power generation increases, building more storage is favored. Lazard's figures are (as is proper) for existing storage, not for the much cheaper storage that will be built. It is generally a mistake to assume people controlling billion-dollar budgets have no idea what they are doing.

If PV and storage were that much cheaper, those people controlling billion-dollar budgets would have built that instead of gas plants and this discussion would be moot.

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 5:58 AM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #91

KennyBlanken wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. [Citation required] Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. > nuclear would be quite competitively priced Nuclear is one of the most expensive and keeps getting more expensive; it's not competing against natural gas. It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of gen…

> Grid-scale battery systems have fallen more than 70% since 2015. Then why are there checks notes 0 deployments ? Battery costs are exploding currently due to the hikes in prices of lithium, nickel and cobalt. Battery demand outstrips supply by far, and batteries are needed elsewhere. > It's competing against wind and solar, the two cheapest forms of generation. They're complimentary, not competition. Solar+wind alo…

Post by davidgay » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 6:03 AM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #168

barathr wrote: post #42

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. Ironically, with concentrated solar…

Ah yes, "just build it in the desert". It's only a matter of: - Building hectares upon hectares of solar panels in one of the most hostile regions in the world - Maintaining them because the sand is horribly damaging, and replacing them regularly - ignore the fact that, in the Sahara, there's multiple wars going on over there and that it would be a prime location for a terrorist attack - Somehow, also build the infra…

Post by DoingIsLearning » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 6:27 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #86

barathr wrote: post #42

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. Ironically, with concentrated solar…

> but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1]. I'm not sure why comments (for and against nuclear/renewables) with energy ignore this factor. Wind, hydro, and solar aren't homogeneously distributed around the globe (let alone the US) nor through time. The conversati…