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

Solar and wind are nice, but they don't solve the base load problem. They aren't consistent enough to operate as base load on a power grid. They are certainly convenient for maintaining peak load, but without solving the energy storage issue in parallel to the added capacity, we need alternatives.


Spreading out production units of a mix (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal...) is key. For the sole wind: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

Then comes storage, curtailment, and backup (always necessary: fossil-fuel plants always produce around 9% of electricity in fully-nuclearized France).

Moreover backup is now provided thanks to gas turbines, and we know to run them thanks to hydrogen (clean), which can be green hydrogen (cleanly produced thanks to renewable sources overproduction).


>Spreading out production units of a mix (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal...) is key.

Sure. Let me just build hydro dam where there's no hills and dig some geothermal where's no geothermal activity and we're all set!


There is no need for each location to deploy each and every type of production unit: each region has its own geography and preferences.

Those benefiting from huge potential for hydro, offshore wind or solar (deserts...) are at an advantage. Those benefiting from a low production time-profile correlation with most other ones also are blessed.

Those totally unable to deploy anything probably don't need huge amounts of energy or are rich to the point of already importing it (is there a counter-example?).


Laser drilling is not far from being viable. With it you can put geothermal anywhere.


That has yet to be proved viable. It might be competitive, it might not, we'll have to see.

At any rate you could build nuclear faster than that will take to be ready for market in the best case.




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

Search: