This isn't new. There are a number of companies standing up grid-scale storage sites like this, especially in CA.
It really is a requirement for Renewable energy to make any sense at scale (which is one of the valid reasons that many have been against Renewables).
The guy talking is very ignorant.
Grid storage is a huge problem which is magnified by purposeful misapplication of "green" energy.
Currently, there is no form of "green" energy which is reliable and inexpensive. Grid storage attempts to hide the issue rather than address it. Nuclear is the only one which fits the bill. It's so reliable, it's base load. Nuclear pricing is artificially inflated an order of magnitude or more. It's still the cheapest energy on earth.
One thing not clear is how they are meaning 'grid storage'. Storing energy in the grid has a few methods, but mostly aren't what one would imagine it to mean.
If it's a battery backup, that's going to be HUGE batteries and wouldn't really do much more than provide a segment of the grid with a backup power in a time of failure that MIGHT list minutes to hours (lots of variables).
Agreed on green energy. Even at face value with tech specs and weather patterns; solar north of Texas is a losing proposition (until the conversion efficiency is in the 80% range, where typical is 30-40%, last I looked into it). Wind power is fine if you have a turbine attached to your farm land, great for load shedding but less so for grid scale production.
Grid storage generally means water, wheel, or heat. Green electricity is especially problematic for grid stability. As wind can hugely fluctuate and large clouds can dramatically effect solar output. These huge and rapid transient events can be significantly smoothed with some form of grid storage. The result is improved grid stability.
The problem is, an outage of the storage (battery fire, and has repeatedly happened in the past), can knock the total segment capacity offline. Which means, for reliability you still need fossil or nuclear to back it. Which means idle surplus capacity equal to that farm's capacity.
Which now means the green cost is green + grid storage + fossil backing capacity which you're demanding to remain idle. So yaaa... more expensive electricity for the same reliability.
Just to be clear, are you saying I'm the one who is very ignorant? Or the guy in the video?
It may surprise you, but I don't disagree with you in spirit. I agree nukes are theoretically all we need. I say this as a VP of an energy services company.
However you are completely ignoring political realities and facts on the ground around why we have other forms of generation beyond nukes. The stand-up cost is exceptionally high, which creates a high barrier of entry to competition. They are incredibly centralized and do nothing to solve for grid congestion. There's still something of a question of what to do with the waste. And frankly, many in the public don't trust them to be safe (I disagree, modern Western designs are exceptionally safe).
Renewables are here, and popular. Should they replace base load? Hell no of course not. But they do provide a reasonable distributed alternative when paired with storage, even if it is to solve only for non-economic requirements.
Guy in video. Sorry of I want clear.
If you look at nuke pricing, it's not based on reality. It's pricing is bullshit created by politics created by evil men. I agree that nuke is best left for baseload. Though I hear load following is pretty good now. Small nuke and MSR advancements have come a long way.
As for, "waste", that's MSM bullshit. It's actually 92% fuel. Carter banned reprocessing. Nuclear and other technologies can also address this if allowed.
The real problem with green energy is it's based on giant lies. The true cost of green energy is green + conventional backing. By in large, they've been getting a free ride on preexisting fossil infrastructure. Grid scale storage certainly helps with some of the "green" issues, but costs dramatically rise. And bank failure can take out an entire grid.
You can't have a reliable grid past 50% "green" saturation. Energy costs can only rise at 50% saturation.
Which tells you, absolutely no one who is pushing for more than 50% saturation has anyone's best interests in mind but their own.
(post is archived)