this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
217 points (87.5% liked)

Memes

45619 readers
1306 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
217
reactor bad.jpg (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (33 children)

They both suck. Going renewable is the only way.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (21 children)

You should search the term grid scale storage and get back to me with a viable solution.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about a mixture of batteries (redox-flow, LiFePo, NaFePO, iron-air, Li-Ion), thermal storage (porous volcanic stone, heated water, liquid salt), mechanical storage (giant rotating masses, compressed air), pumped hydroelectrical storage, power-to-gas or power to liquid(hydrogen or ammonia) and creating interconnected power grids?

That should do. Would not create a single point of failure and prevent having everything in the hands of probably a single entity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

While I agree that we need to pursue energy storage solutions In addition to investing in renewables and nuclear. I feel that it would be staggeringly inefficient to have to harvest and store and then redistribute power at the scale you are describing. The power loss and transmission alone from generation to battery to end user would be over 30% most likely. And at that point It's far more efficient to directly energize the consumer with an on-demand source such as a nuclear power plant.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)