Days before President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office and took actions to stall the transition to clean energy, a disaster unfolded on the other side of the country that may have an outsize effect on the pace of the transition.
A fire broke out last Thursday at the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California, one of the largest battery energy storage systems in the world. The fire raged through the weekend, forcing local officials to evacuate nearby homes and close roads.
Battery storage is an essential part of the transition away from fossil fuels. It works in tandem with solar and wind power to provide electricity during periods when the renewable resources aren’t available. But lithium-ion batteries, the most common technology used in storage systems, are flammable. And if they catch fire, it can be difficult to extinguish.
Last week’s fire is the latest and largest of several at the Moss Landing site in recent years, and I expect that it will become the main example opponents of carbon-free electricity use to try to stop battery development in other places.
it’s a bit rich. “opponents of carbon-free electricity” are suddenly opposed to burning things huh?
anyway, there is actually a way to reduce our need for batteries AND fossil fuels. Nuclear.
Of course they’re conveniently ignoring refineries catching fire or even gas station explosions. That seem to be regular events.
New nuclear is dead in the water, there’s just no economic argument for building it.
that’s just nonsense.
France auditors recently put out a report in which they criticized the high cost of their nuclear program and requested a moratorium for new projects in other countries.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/france-far-ready-build-six-new-nuclear-reactors-auditor-says-2025-01-14/
well yes at 70% of its energy supply, France probably has too much nuclear now that renewables are cheaper. They are a massive outlier in that regard. This is not about making nuclear the one single energy source everywhere, but to provide a baseline load for stability and to reduce grid infrastructure upgrades like storage and new connections to distributed solar and wind farms. The article also says they hope to export their nuclear expertise to countries who are interested in nuclear, so they clearly do believe in the technology.
But the issue is, it’s too expensive to build. And the small reactor startup project is also not producing power and seems to be built on hype
too expensive compared to what?
SMRs specifically are a new developing technology. I suppose it’s possible they are all hype, but with many big tech firms investing in them to power datacenters, I tend to think there’s a good chance they’ll work out in the end. China’s first SMR will be up and running soon, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
Renewables + Storage + Grid.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s good to sink so much money in this, we could build more renewables instead. But you’re right, we will see
again in France specifically I agree pivoting to more renewables makes sense because they already have an abundance of nuclear. But if we look at the earth as a whole, renewables don’t work everywhere, they take up a lot of space, and will require a TON of storage to provide reliable power during peak and off-peak usage. If you actually factor in all that grid storage and distributed infrastructure needed for renewables the overall cost difference to nuclear is not nearly as bad as the usual LCOE calculations make it seem since 100% of nuclear’s cost is baked in up front.
Of what I’ve read about French recent problematic projects, the high cost there was due to French bureaucracy, organizational mess and probably corruption, not due to anything about technology itself.
One should factor that in always. Building roads in Russia is so expensive definitely not because of anything unclear with the technology or the climate.
But the technology requires this amount of bureaucracy, else you get big problems. I trust physics, but i don’t trust humans. Especially if they can get money by skimping on security. The risks with renawables (except dams) are way smaller.
Solid rebuttal, good job 👍
I put as much effort into my rebuttal as you did in your initial comment. If you want an actual conversation, by all means begin any time you like.
I already did. New nuclear isn’t economically viable.
rebuttal: yes it is.
great conversation! feel free to add any context, reasoning, or citations to support your opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Capital_costs
lol this is such lazy bullshit. god forbid you actually have to type more than one sentence to explain your position.
yes, nuclear has a high startup cost, this is known. that does not automatically mean it’s not economically viable.