Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ilostmymind_ t1_j5cmg65 wrote

Reply to comment by Give_me_the_science in Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor by paulfdietz

Problem is there literally isn't enough global reserves of required resources for grid storage and electrifying the global transport fleet.

And we can't just pin out hat on new discoveries, tech or advances that could take a decade or more to reach market, because we are out of time now.

−1

colonel_beeeees t1_j5cqap0 wrote

Redox flow batteries are scalable and there's already companies getting started on their first contracts right now.

The graph of innovation is so steeply curved upward, I think people forget that we're pretty good at improving things when allowed to do so

7

prometheus2508 t1_j5csiop wrote

Like miniaturizing nuclear reactors? Or is that the wrong kind of innovation?

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5ctaw6 wrote

It's innovation that has a poor history of innovating. That probably has something to do with the size of the units (even these ones) and the penalty for getting the design wrong. Design iteration seem to take forever and not really work well.

5

prometheus2508 t1_j5ctvbp wrote

Or is it because fossil lobbies suppress all competing technologies?

5

paulfdietz OP t1_j5hau6p wrote

Nuclear stans will explain it's always someone else's fault. Reliable as clockwork, they are.

3

prometheus2508 t1_j5hbjua wrote

The math only allows for one solution to carbon-free energy for humanity. Being ignorant doesn't change the math.

0

ilostmymind_ t1_j5ctan7 wrote

And we'll need those too. Though we'll also need to bring on new mining capacity though which can take decades.

>we're pretty good at improving things when allowed to do so

We are. So why is fission not allowed to along side. People raise cost issues and overruns but that's a symptom of when you don't let an industry develop and a self-sustaining skilled workforce grow.

My point isn't too be pro-nuclear to the exclusion of all else. It's that it needs to be part of the make up because we are going to need resources spread around a lot of different industries.

2

paulfdietz OP t1_j5co6u6 wrote

Tell me you think Li-ion is the only kind of battery without saying Li-ion is the only kind of battery.

3

ilostmymind_ t1_j5coscf wrote

Yes because cars run well on pumped hydro...

−3

paulfdietz OP t1_j5ct3jl wrote

So, you're walking back your comment about grid storage?

The batteries for transportation would be needed even if power were from nuclear, unless you're planning on putting nuclear reactors in cars.

6

ilostmymind_ t1_j5cv1dw wrote

Nope. We literally do not have the resources/and or supply chain solely rely on alternatives for everything.

And I don't suggest nuclear to the exclusion of all else.

But battery tech that is barely out of research phase, small scale trials, or requires significant increase in supply capacity is still decades away from being a force in the industry.

What part of we are out of time do some people not understand.

−4

paulfdietz OP t1_j5cvxag wrote

Yes. We can do it without using any excessive amount of any rare material. Storage can be done with cheap materials available in essentially unlimited amounts (steel, for example). The materials required are small compared to the materials used by industrial society as a whole.

You should have realized that your claim there requires that you know that no possible storage technology or combinations thereof could do the job. You are making a very strong claim that would require exhaustive analysis of all known or possible storage technologies that I am sure you have not performed. The claim that it could be done only requires finding some specific counterexamples.

5