The main advantage of nuclear is the steady production of power that does not need to be stored and can be used on demand by the grid.
Solar is great but we will need an alternative to form the backbone of our grid until energy storage advances. Nuclear is a great contender for them to get away from natural gas.
Batteries give stability to the grid. It doesn’t matter where the generation comes from as long as it’s there.
Worrying that batteries drain is like worrying that your fuel rods deplete (they have a 6 year lifespan)- You build the capacity so it’s never a problem.
I’m not saying that batteries don’t I’m just saying they don’t have the current technology to be the backbone of our grid.
The issue with batteries currently is that they aren’t able to ramp up and down instantly despite what it may seem, so sudden spikes in usage can’t be addressed, a pivotal part of electric grid infrastructure.
The issue with batteries currently is that they aren’t able to ramp up and down instantly despite what it may seem
Large battery systems are already in use as base load in Australia. They absolutely can ramp up and down and can do so faster than nuclear because nuclear is just a steam generator. Large generators have inertia requiring a minimum of 10 minutes to speed up when already fully operational, otherwise 1-12 hours.
You’re correct I had misremembered and had to revisit my sources. I was not able to find sufficient data support my claim that batteries have any inherent delay.
However, In Australia which gets relatively consistent wind and solar I think it is more beneficial to invest in batteries.
Conversely in North America where the efficacy of wind and solar vary significantly by season and local climate, it is necessary to oversize generation and use batteries needed in order to ensure grid stability during periods of high demand and low supply.
This is attainable on the small scale and absolutely could be used to stabilize a grid with a steady backbone provided by something like nuclear or natural gas.
However without the stabilization of another steady source the cost quickly becomes unfavorable if you wish to maintain absolute grid stability as excessive over building is necessary with the highly volatile production.
I do think this is shifting more in the favor of battery storage with every new advancement.
My apologies for my previous misinformation it has been a long time since I’ve visited this topic.
The main advantage of nuclear is the steady production of power that does not need to be stored and can be used on demand by the grid.
Solar is great but we will need an alternative to form the backbone of our grid until energy storage advances. Nuclear is a great contender for them to get away from natural gas.
Batteries give stability to the grid. It doesn’t matter where the generation comes from as long as it’s there.
Worrying that batteries drain is like worrying that your fuel rods deplete (they have a 6 year lifespan)- You build the capacity so it’s never a problem.
I’m not saying that batteries don’t I’m just saying they don’t have the current technology to be the backbone of our grid.
The issue with batteries currently is that they aren’t able to ramp up and down instantly despite what it may seem, so sudden spikes in usage can’t be addressed, a pivotal part of electric grid infrastructure.
Large battery systems are already in use as base load in Australia. They absolutely can ramp up and down and can do so faster than nuclear because nuclear is just a steam generator. Large generators have inertia requiring a minimum of 10 minutes to speed up when already fully operational, otherwise 1-12 hours.
You’re correct I had misremembered and had to revisit my sources. I was not able to find sufficient data support my claim that batteries have any inherent delay.
However, In Australia which gets relatively consistent wind and solar I think it is more beneficial to invest in batteries.
Conversely in North America where the efficacy of wind and solar vary significantly by season and local climate, it is necessary to oversize generation and use batteries needed in order to ensure grid stability during periods of high demand and low supply.
This is attainable on the small scale and absolutely could be used to stabilize a grid with a steady backbone provided by something like nuclear or natural gas.
However without the stabilization of another steady source the cost quickly becomes unfavorable if you wish to maintain absolute grid stability as excessive over building is necessary with the highly volatile production.
I do think this is shifting more in the favor of battery storage with every new advancement.
My apologies for my previous misinformation it has been a long time since I’ve visited this topic.