161
A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming...
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
161 points (79.3% liked)
memes
22340 readers
3054 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm sure batteries will play an important role in the future, but it's not significant today and I don't see any indication of this changing rapidly in a meaningful way. I'd love to be wrong though.
Regarding the issues with nuclear power, the ecological impact is far better than hydro and health impact/deaths is also significantly better. I'm not trying to badmouth hydro here, but I think it's important to be fair and acknowledge that on those two issues (ecological impact, human health) nuclear has a better track record.
Even in US, $100/kwh retail battery price points with bms, 48v, exist. Utility scale in rest of world is much cheaper. China is $51/kwh for a containerized full battery solution with (4 hour) inverter. At 7% ROI (to pay for full 30 year mortgage on LFP batteries as that is their life expectancy at slow charge/discharge rates) means just 1c/kwh discharge profit is required to pay for $55/kwh batteries. Similar calculation for just 4 sun hours/day. $600/kw installation costs at 7% ROI, means 3c/kwh daytime electricity rates.
There's not just exponential growth as @Hellgruen@lemmy.zip pointed out, it is dumb to do anything else.
Ok man good luck with that. Since the economy is so overwhelmingly in your favor, we should see battery capacity outpace energy need growth any time now.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-battery-storage-capacity-additions-2010-2023
Well fortunately you are wrong
For context, global energy output is 30k TWh/year. That's T for tera.
For context, that’s growth, not total capacity. And after covid one would suspect ppl would understand exponential growth and to understand what that means for a business Modell $$$
Also we don’t need capacity for the whole output of a year.
For even more context, the annual growth in electricity output is about 5x the addition of battery capacity.
That doesn’t change the fact that battery storage is a business case with exponential growth and is just taking off while nuclear power is expensive, takes long time to plan and build and all the new fancy stuff is still hypothetical and it’s not certain it will ever take off in regard of recent bankruptcy’s in the smr field
True, and if we can make cheap batteries (e.g. sodium based) at scale then it absolutely could become a thing over the next decades. I just don't want energy transition to hinge on unproven tech. We can't play around with this, climate change is way too serious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_energy_storage_system#/media/File:Average-battery-cell-price-b.png
It’s already happening
There is more to consider than simple napkin math. There already isn’t enough lithium mining capacity on the planet to transfer the world to EVs and it is already not keeping up with demand. What do you think will happen if we want to provide back up power for entire countries with batteries? It’s not feasible.
Like Fukushima, three miles island or Tschernobyl?
Yes, like those. Your three examples show how benign nuclear power is, factoting in the absolute worst of circumstances and most ridiculous levels of incompetence.
Oh, there are so many more incidents.
Maybe you should do your own homework before linking Wikipedia at me. Nuclear is safer than hydro in terms of human casualties per energy produced as well as per land mass destroyed, and if you want to make a counter-argument or add any other variable the burden of proof is on you.
Sure it is, buddy