Green Energy

2234 readers

151 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

205

In 4 years, US power grid increased battery storage to the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors | The Optimist Daily (www.optimistdaily.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

According to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), more than 20 gigawatts (GW) of battery capacity have been added to the US electric grid in the last four years. This rapid expansion is equivalent to the production of 20 nuclear reactors and is crucial for averting power disruptions, especially in states that rely significantly on intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can we still get a nuclear reactor or two though?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone really should have a problem with nuclear being built.

Just as long as the government doesn't have to pay for the construction, or for running costs including subsidising electricity or for the clean up costs. If a company wants to go ahead and pay for it I say let them.

They wouldn't because it would be financially stupid. But I wouldn't be against it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The government should be building long term waste storage and mandating it's use by the nuclear facilities at cost.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yea I agree with that actually.

But the point was when the cost is held by the companies it is a bad idea for them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

True, the companies get subsidised to build meaning you already paid for a lot of the up front cost through your taxes and are later price gouged again. And once it's over probably they stick the populace with the waste and decommissioning costs.

Example in the Netherlands, we actually had a foundation setup to run the nuclear powerplant, and they had to reserve money for the decommissioning. Once the end of the reactors life was passed, the decommissioning was paid for from the foundation, the money that was left was paid to the shareholders. Turned out the decommissioning was 20 million more expensive... Guess who had to pay...