Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

  • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Uranium is finite too , and at the current rate of usage would last for another 200+ years. Transitioning over to primarily nuclear power, and we're looking at a much reduced time frame. We can (hopefully) find lithium in asteroids to supplement our supply. Of course all of this is utopian shit and we probably won't do either, but still.

    Regardless, I love the idea of pumped storage. You could basically store all of Chile's power needs in pumped storage because the geography there is perfect for it. But yeah you're right on that it's pretty inefficient.

    • Fakename_Bill [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      I really don't like the idea of waiting for better battery technology to save us, but 200 years of uranium seems like a pretty good time frame for developing better batteries.

      • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I mean I'm not going to say "no" if somehow we were able to start pushing on mass nuclear power, but I don't think it's worth the effort and time to invest in when wind and solar are so much cheaper and easier to set up. That's sort of where I'm at.

        • Fakename_Bill [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Energy storage is the issue. You still need to power the hospitals and refrigerators when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Ideally we'd use less energy, but you still need to have *some* energy all the time. We don't have the battery technology to do that with wind and solar.

          • russianattack [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            np. molten salt.
            https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-salt-battery-membrane/53085/

            • HKBFG [he/him]
              hexagon
              ·
              4 years ago

              So, go almost all the way to building a 4th gen reactor, and repurpose it as a battery?

              Sounds... Not bright.