Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ignoring the fact that we don't need 5-10 year development for batteries. You are ignoring the 5-10 year build time for a nuclear reactor.


Five years is extremely optimistic.

The Finnish Olkiluoto plant might go on line in 2022 and then it would have had a 22-year development time. Starting such a project today this would mean it finishes around 2040. And this was planned with "conventional" nuclear technology and knowing well all the difficulties such a construction entails. That would perhaps be in time to power a kind of cold house museum to show our children how Earth has been looking before runaway climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...

Proposing new technology which is sure to run longer smells to me a lot like to suggest doing nothing in order to avoid change that is both absolutely urgent, and totally possible now.


There exist no feasible plan to build out the storage required to make renewables work within 5-10 years. The US consumes 11.5 TWh of electricity every day. About 500GWh every hour. We have about one Gigawatt hour worth of battery storage. We need terawatt hours worth of storage. The availability of battery storage remains off by several orders of magnitude.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: