Neither nuclear nor gas or coal will matter any more in a few years. It took California only six years to install 41% of the battery capacity goal it has for 2045[1]. As batteries are becoming part for new solar and wind installations, they will push nuclear and gas out simply by being cheaper and more predictable as an investment.
> they will push nuclear and gas out simply by being cheaper and more predictable as an investment.
Unfortunately, this probably won't work everywhere. Particularly in Northern Europe winter is tough as there's very little sunlight (manageable) and often very little wind (not manageable,as it lasts longer).
Nuclear is an expensive way of solving this problem, but it's carbon neutral which is super important.
Even that would be manageable with enough solar panels and batteries, no? Or is it certain that too much surface area would have to be covered with panels?
Batteries work for 1-2 days right now. These wind breaks can be 1-2 weeks.
Like, to be fair, batteries have improved so much in the last decade that this may be solved, but I'm generally sceptical of one thing that will save us, as I reckon we'll need multiple things to ensure resilience (which is really, really, really important when it comes to core needs like electricity and heating).
Is the need for "pretty large breakthroughs" based on realistic calculations, or are you just guessing? I know that most people subscribe to your position, but I can't say I've really seen convincing analyses that show the numbers:
- What thresholds of $/kWh, charge speed, power density etc. do we need to reach before scaling becomes viable? What are those thresholds based on?
- Where are we now on those metrics, and how did they evolve over the last 2-3 decades?
Still, everyone seems very confident that scaling is non-viable now. But IMO it should be possible to demonstrate the non-viability using the approach above - even if the exact numbers are wrong, the orders of magnitude should be good enough, right?
> Is the need for "pretty large breakthroughs" based on realistic calculations, or are you just guessing?
I'm just guessing. But absent some kind of path to get there, I'd prefer to plan for needing to cover this situation with nuclear or other storage (I feel like pumped storage may make sense, but again haven't done the numbers).
Like, if you're correct then we'll end up with lots of power we don't really need. That's great, as we can use it to decarbonise other parts of the economy, however, if I'm correct and we dont build some kind of baseload/storage solution then we'll be in trouble in the winters, which I really want to avoid.
If you're correct, we'll end up with tons of extra power, since the nuclear plants would have to cover everything on their own anyway! But it would also take unbelievable amounts of money, and thus delay the energy transition by decades. We don't have that much time left.
Instead of guessing, maybe it's worth looking into the numbers?
[1] https://www.emi-bg.com/en/battery-storage-in-california-has-...