Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable?

Yes. What do I get for $15B? How many GWh of storage and electricity generation?

> It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix.

What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability.

What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage.




> What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability.

You are making the common mistake of assuming pumped hydro must, like primary hydro, be built on rivers. But pumped hydro just requires two reservoirs near each other with a vertical offset (although one can imagine repurposing an existing on-river reservoir by adding a separate off-river reservoir nearby at a different altitude; any reservoir with a sizeable hill nearby would do.) They could be built anywhere that isn't flat, even in deserts.

This web site uses geographical data to find PHES opportunities around the world. The possibilities are enormous.

https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/

As an example, here's a facility being built near Ely, Nevada. Look how arid the area is. This facility is sized to provide 1000 MW of output for 8 hours. At $2.5B, the cost of the project is ~$316/kWh of storage capacity.

https://www.powermag.com/major-pumped-hydro-storage-project-...

> What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage.

You are again making a foolish argument that production of things cannot be increased. Please stop. One would almost begin to think you're arguing in bad faith here.




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

Search: