America adds battery equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors in less than 4 years

[@electricviking]

For free tickets to the show use this link and one of the promotion codes below (if one doesn't work you can try another one) electricviking2024, electricviking_sydneyevshow, electricvikingsunday (Sunday only) : www.futuredriveauto.au/syd/ev24/comp-tickets Click here to get a free charger and installation when pre-ordering the G6 xpeng.com.au/?qr=726XPO The best solar company in Australia just installed my new solar system. Check them out here: www.resinc.com.au/electricviking

[@PaulRobins-s9b]

Great story about batteries in the US, Sam. A couple of other things about the beauty of batteries is the fact that they can be situated in a lot of places in a huge variety of sizes. Even at the end of a transmission line. They don't have to be right next to the power generation equipment. They can charge fast or slowly, overnight or in the middle of the day. A mountain village might be sheltered and shaded but a battery could ensure their power. Paul

[@thyristo]

Yeah...but it's just a story. Reality: China Battery Storage: 100 GW Equivalent Nuclear Power Plants: 10 USA Battery Storage: 16 GW Equivalent Nuclear Power Plants: 1-2

[@MidnightOtter-19]

This is awesome. Ive been screaming this for the past 20 years.

[@robcarlmark1949]

This is my favorite new channel that I have found. I work in news in California and WE DO NOT COVER THIS STORY. We need to. I would love to include you in a story in the future...let me know if this is possible. People here have no idea what is happening.

[@PhxElecAuto]

Large mega batteries like Tesla and others make are great on the GRID. They can't seem to make enough of them.

[@Guvament_bs]

@@PhxElecAuto and taxpayers can't afford to pay for them.

[@almostthere100]

@@Guvament_bs Wrong! They're far less expensive than "peaker" plants.

[@Guvament_bs]

@almostthere100 how much would it cost to provide 5 days backup for your country with batteries. You will be shocked if you do the maths. I have done it.

[@st-ex8506]

@@Guvament_bs ... but you don't need 5 days of back-up storage anywhere in the USA... save Alaska. 30 to 96 hours are enough, depending on the regions. Not even Germany needs that much (ca. 110 hours are enough)! And you don't need to deploy all that back-up now... only progressively as the solar + wind generating capacities are being developed. We have 20 years to deploy that amount of storage... and its cost is going down 14% a year! So, your cost calculation is moot! Solar + wind + storage is already now the cheapest form of energy. I suggest you read the Lazard report on Levelized Cost of Energy, or RethinkX Energy Report.

[@Guvament_bs]

@st-ex8506 In my country the guvament is purely ideologically driven. They want no gas coal or nuclear. They want wind solar and batteries no exceptions. A few times a year it it very overcast and rainy for a week or more over large parts of the country. So if we want reliable power we need at least a week's worth of batteries. The country is flat as a pancake and relatively dry so little hydro. While battery prices are dropping they will always be fairly expensive. Mining manufacture and transport is not free from cost.

[@ChicagoBob123]

Solar makes power on empty desert land. Batteries deliver power when the sun doesn't shine. If energy density doubles or as some think quadruples it will be interesting

[@JSM-bb80u]

Energy density doesn't matter for grid energy storage at all.

[@Solid_Snake99]

We need to solve the recycling first before we go full power, or we will make a big mistake ...

[@Solid_Snake99]

These panels all have glass and EVA plastics inside, which are difficult to separate

[@ChicagoBob123]

@Solid_Snake99 recycling is ready for batteries. This will make batteries cheaper when only limited mining is since the test is from recycled material.

[@ChicagoBob123]

@Solid_Snake99 does perovskite suffer this issue?

[@Macaktom1]

20GW power but capacity 20GWh? In that case these batteries store less electric energy than 1 nuclear reactor produces in 24h?

[@Raggadish.]

I think he is confusing power and energy.

[@vic321344]

yes

[@taxsi]

If all these batteries are charged in the peak solar power generation and depleted in the night DAILY, aren't we getting not the same but comparable output to a 20 gw nuclear reactor capacity like 20 gw*24 hours vs. 20 gw*4 hours (he mentioned bw. 6 and 10 pm use)? asking for learning and clarification.

[@Macaktom1]

@@taxsi At 20GW they are depeleted in just 1 hour...

[@paulc6766]

@@Macaktom1 You don't understand how the grid works.

[@troy121100]

I love the chess board example of exponential. It truly is difficult to wrap your mind around it.

[@ChicagoBob123]

Hey Viking you should add solar panel news/reviews and future versions to your channel. Renewables with battery storage should explode in the next few years.

[@frankszanto]

So 20GW of batteries is equivalent in power to 20 1GW nuclear plants. But a nuclear plant runs 24 hours a day, and 335 days a year, (with 30 days for maintenance etc), with output which keeps the grid stable, allowing it to cope with other, unstable sources of power. Meanwhile those batteries can only supply that 20 GW for one hour, or maybe 1.5 hr. And they do not produce energy. They only store excess energy which is not being used at the time. They are not equivalent.

[@johnmightymole2284]

Charge and discharge. Nuclear most expensive and not viable without government finance.

[@frankszanto]

@@johnmightymole2284 Why is it that renewables require government subsidies if they are the cheapest form of energy? And by the way, it is already being concluded that offshore wind is as expensive as nuclear. But my point was simply that a battery is in no way equivalent to a nuclear plant.A battery must spend as much or more time charging than it does discharging. It produces no energy.

[@superbear617]

I am curious why there is a big need for transmission upgrades due to battery deployment, because a key benefit of battery power is that the battery can be placed where it is needed. Unlike a power plant, which is often located quite remote from the end use consumer.

[@malapropist]

From what I understand, big batteries can offset transmission upgrades -- they're two solutions for the same problem. It's taking time for people to adjust the way they think about the power grid, with the new possibilities of grid batteries.

[@LeonieBachmann-h7x]

Sam, power generation and power storage are not the same. Just saying.

[@frostcb2]

Here’s an idea: If you could get the $500 referral bonus, you should start asking people for the referral code every so often. That could alone be enough for a Tesla payment, ask ppl and you might receive. Ppl like your positivity and knowledge.

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

no wrong. these batteries could provide this much power for one hour only.

[@DifferentAlgorithm-vw8ig]

Wind and Solar farms are not free energy, they are expensive alternatives to conventional Power Generators. The Megapacks are an excellent addition to an Electrical Grid that is strained at peak times by producing power in an instant which the big Generators can't achieve, and also help filter voltage spikes some say. However these Megapacks have to be charged during the offpeak times in the middle of the night, so still rely on conventional power. The ability of Nuclear Power cannot be ignored as a source of clean power and can be developed further for less expensive and safer installions.

[@serpserpserp]

Takes 10 years to build a nuclear reactor and get it on the grid. Imagine the density of batteries and how many will be deployed within the next 5 years?

[@Carl_in_AZ]

Hyperscalers are looking at nuclear for "prime" base loading and grid utility for backup power, so there is no need for backup generators. I give it twelve years before a hyperscaler brings on one new nuclear power plant worldwide. Look at the 1.8GW Tract Group hyperscaler under construction in Buckeye, Arizona. This data center will use as much energy as the whole city of Phoenix. The local 4GW Palo Verde nuclear plant is already at 90% capacity. The state is adding 57 GW of new generation in the next 30 years, with nearly 80% coming from wind and solar. Arizona has 923 megawatts of battery energy storage systems (BESS). They are only adding 2GW of BESS in 2025. Base loading will be an issue in Arizona over the next 15 years. The demand for AI power needs to be addressed quickly.

[@kevinW826]

A water hydro electric damn can generate the equivalent of 18 nuclear power plants. Batteries won’t do squat compared to hydro power.

[@allangraham970]

In Australia 8 hr batteries are winning all the new tenders for energy storage, beating hydro

[@mxguy2438]

These things are not exponential growth curves, they are "S curves". Predict the inflection point and you will have a more accurate outlook of the future.

[@Utoko]

Storage and production is not the same? This video seems confused. My brain hurts from the statement in the headline which gets repeated in the video. 20GW means you can cover 1h the output from the ~20 nuclear reactors.

[@ComeJesusChrist]

The truth or logic and practicalities have no place in the EV delusion and false green agenda.

[@vic321344]

The information of 20GW of battery capacity makes no sense at all. You would need the GWh number.

[@keithb7981]

Actually, modular micro nuclear reactor packs do make sense are are totally safe. Leader in this tech development is a company started and run by a former Tesla employee. These units will be about the size of a magapac battery module and be able to power small city. The fuel can't melt, unit can't run-away. Units will be portable, or can be buried in concrete vaults for security. Like will go to Mars on Starships, too.

[@markthomasson5077]

…so why dont we see any? I understand that they are not economically viable. They are not new tech, basically nuclear submarines…without the submarine

[@guringai]

Nobody on the planet has seen or made one yet. They are not out of the lab yet.

[@imconsequetau5275]

NuScale Power has received a license from the NRC. Others are a bit further behind: ° TerraPower ° Westinghouse ° BWXT Technologies ° Kairos Power ​@@markthomasson5077

[@fractalelf7760]

Nuclear is just going to have to be it… a need for 5x or more the energy cannot mean fossil fuels. Nuclear is safer and the only answer to augment solar until fusion.

[@i6power30]

So all the big techs, Google, Microsft, Amazon investing heavily on nuclear are all making financial mistakes? Maybe the cost of land lease for renewables and field of batteries could cost even more than nuclear?

[@mike160543]

They are not stupid. They look at the economics, not politics

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

People also forget that empty rooftops are perfect for PV panels, and grid electricity is not needed when the sunshines 🌞 With home batteries, grid electricity is not needed when the 🌞 sets. Max grid demand, and it's cashflow will STOP. Nuclear owner needs 247 cashflow Grid owners need 247 cashflow Both have a massive economic problem. The grid could be a bigger problem. It is 10 times bigger investment and NEEDS more cash daily.

[@i6power30]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 agreed on household power generation. But I'm against massive solar and wind farms and massive battery arrays taking up lots of space otherwise could be forest and for wild life.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@i6power30 The grid costs are the key to understanding how the grid limits central generators and distant renewables. Also the massive increase in clean electricity to replace fossil fuel. 20million buildings in Australia, and California, means massive area of grid connected future rooftop PV. The grid will join with the rooftop PV and BVs oversized battery parked 23hrs every and take the dirt cheap electricity and supply new industrial customers moving away from fossil fuels. Little new grid construction costs. $TRILLIONS saved. Grid cashflow maintained.

[@GruffSillyGoat]

@@i6power30 - yet offshore wind farms adds to biodiversity by creating artificial reefs at their anchorage sites. On shore wind farm density is very low, and can be intermixed with forestry if required with little land loss. PV arrays can increase green space if implemented properly, reudcing ground level evaporation impacts for example. Batteries are more denser than some other forms of energy capture, and can be stacked reducing space further, this can free up usage of land from other forms of energy production and storage (such as vast oil farms). That is the environment and renewables are not foes, but can co-exist with mutual benefits if planned and implemented properly. Many studies into this subject have been undertaken, the general conclusion is it's the construction that has the most impact rather than operation of renewable generation and storage. If the construction is managed with ecosystems and environment as part of the plans and implementaion monitors, then the renewables impact can be mitigated. With forests for example, sustainably implemented on shore wind turbines if implemented sufficiently above the tree line was found to have limited impact, but also found to offer advantages within forests as it reduced the likelihood of deforestration due to other demands; with some eco parties suggesting implementing turbines to increase reforested land use. The key is implementing renewables with environmental factors included, for example including no-go areas such as extremely senstive areas such as peatlands.

[@alokkadam4416]

Err..... How does nuclear power not make sense economically?? Could you please explain...

[@hanswitvliet8188]

Horrible expensive to build and to decommission. Think in billions.

[@pin65371]

@@hanswitvliet8188 but they can last for 80 years. If you are only thinking short term then yah its expensive. You need to think long term.

[@JamesKennedy-zs8go]

They take 10 years to build, they are always over budget and never finished on time. There's no way to 100% safety get rid of the waste. Battery and solar is right now cheaper than nuclear ,100% recyclable. And going forward it's gonna get cheaper. Nuclear is kaput, over, done. Finished. Catcha wakeup

[@imconsequetau5275]

The old General Electric designs were unsafe as provided by industry. Regulations made the safer designs very expensive. What is needed are the 4th and 5th generation designs that do not use the huge reinforced concrete containment domes. Those required enormous lead times (5-8 years) to fabricate and finance before any ROI. The newer modular plants are built in factories and installed into deep wells in just months. ROI begins much sooner, and safety is passive.

[@HaraldinChina]

BTW: Flaute is pronounced "flow" (as in flower) -tay, rather than flawt. Dunkel pronunciation was spot on

[@WalterL-gz5zs]

Based on the search results, it is evident that the production of solar batteries, including those used for storing electricity from solar panel farms, has an environmental footprint. The manufacturing process involves mining for metals and minerals, such as silicon, silver, copper, indium, tellurium, and lithium, which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Mining and processing: The extraction and processing of these metals and minerals require energy, water, and chemicals, leading to environmental impacts like air and water pollution, land degradation, and waste generation.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

At some point we will not be able to sell our ICE vehicles or trade them in. 😮😮😮

[@jsanders100]

Yup, classic car values already falling off a cliff

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@jsanders100 I actually think it will take 20years for Australia to replace 20 million vehicles at 1 million per year. Classic cars will always be wanted. Petroleum for road building and maintenance and petrochemical industry and emergency use and ICE vehicles will be required for years, for ever.

[@GruffSillyGoat]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 - petroleum use in roads, chemicals and industrial use is already being investigated by industry and academia for replacement; for roads initially focused on bio-binders and asphalt reclamation. Emergency use roles of petroluem will be replaced by long term battery storage. Expecting the status quo to continue on the basis of what's used today, particularly when change is underway, has never historically worked out.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@GruffSillyGoat I am happy you total me. It is good to hear. I was just making the point that it will take decades. 20million Australian vehicles can not be replaced in 1 year.

[@kevinW826]

At some point, EVs will not be sold, just scrapped and tossed away, just like cell phones. Which EVs are.

[@ALB2073]

This title is very misleading. Yes it may be true that there is the equivalent battery storage to Nuclear capacity, however the amount of available energy is definitely not equivalent. A Nuclear plant can provide its installed capacity 24/7. The battery systems cannot (not even close).

[@scottstormcarter9603]

Great metaphor. Burning pile of money.

[@adamkatolik1633]

Exponential growth is fine and dandy but this will not stay exponential as there is an annual installation capacity in terms of workers available to do this…

[@hokroeger]

First time in years I read something positive about the US.

[@nickalexander8287]

⚡️For every intermittent power generator a base load generator is required - 2 x power generation systems⚡️

[@eddieadams4770]

And what about it?

[@hughlawson1051]

The problem with the vikings video is that it confuses power with energy. A one megawatt battery bank can supply electricity at one megawatt of Power for some length of time before it runs out. Lets say it runs out in one hour. At the end of an hour it will have supplied one megawatt-hour of Energy for the day. A one megawatt nuclear plant can supply one megawatt of Power for 24 hours, or 24 megawatt-hours. The viking is clearly talking about power here and his power figures are probably spot-on. But a valid comparison would compare both the amount of power the batteries can provide and how long the batteries can provide the power, which is the total energy. The energy available over 24 hours from all these batteries is far less than the energy available from a nuclear plant supplying the same power for 24 hours straight.

[@johnfrancis4401]

What is cheaper? What is safer? Of course the cost of nuclear is high but it is reliable for a long time. Batteries store surplus wind or solar energy - but there is still a risk if you get prolonged dull calm days.

[@mikeklein4949]

I like this unit of measurement, nukes. I don't like nukes, even mini-nukes are possibly ;having no aquifer behind they crash. Good work, USA.

[@sandraaspromonte7478]

I'll tell you when I have walked out through the doors and you can pick me up at the front door, you don't need to come into the building.

[@xperyskop2475]

I don't care about emissions. I do like affordable electricity so batteries are awsome

[@Harrybollox]

I’m sure as per the comments the headline is invalid due to creative accounting, but nuclear is too hard . Politically it’s just a football, it’s not going to happen in Australia , it’s all hot air. It’s a shame we can’t consider all options , including clean gas and nuclear , all because of politics and paranoia

[@budgetaudiophilelife-long5461]

THANKS SAM FOR THE RICE 🍚 EXPLANATION 🤗⚡️⚡️⚡️

[@electricviking]

Glad you found it helpful!

[@paulelkins425]

I live in California and our electricity rates are by far the highest in the Continental US. The cost benefit of cheap solar with battery backup hasn't materialized.

[@Berkhoi]

Then the middleman is stealing the cost benefits. The best recourse is to cut out that middle man. Not to forget, power companies are using the cost benefits of renewables to subsidize the ever-increasing cost of fossil fuel power, another reason for the lack of low-cost materialization.

[@Mauricio17-x1p]

Fires destroying major components of the grid-and the need to upgrade the grid to deal with them=CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!

[@pin65371]

@@Berkhoi why is the price going up for fossil fuel power? Natural gas prices are at an all time low. The data doesnt align with your comment.

[@hhal9000]

But I bet the Guardian didn't mention how heavily Tesla was involved in providing the battery storage for the US grid.

[@Zladcore]

Dunkelflaute!

[@thyristo]

China Battery Storage: 100 GW Equivalent Nuclear Power Plants: 10 USA Battery Storage: 16 GW Equivalent Nuclear Power Plants: 1-2

[@geneconnelly2478]

A nuclear reactor will run 8000 hours. Those batteries run 4- 6 hours

[@davidpickard9393]

Sam is using politician talk again. Claiming the power of 20 reactors without saying that this is for only 1 hour max.

[@imconsequetau5275]

Sam does mention that newest installations have a capacity of up to 8 hours. As battery costs continue to drop this trend will continue.

[@paolopetrozzi2213]

The title doesn't make any sense. A lot of confusion in your videos, dear.

[@MichaelByrt-b6c]

Cool

[@Kevriyal5654]

California is the type of state to condemn Elon for providing them with a battery storage solution.

[@Guvament_bs]

In recent news it was reported that several big tech companies were investing in nuclear power because they need continuous reliable cheap power. Isn't that what we all need. If the big rich tech companies don't believe the renewable hype why should we.

[@duncancairncross]

Nuclear is great! Unfortunately its about four times as expensive as Wind, Solar and Storage

[@Guvament_bs]

@duncancairncross simply not true but that is the lie the green left are pushing. If it were true wouldn't the big tech companies be investing in renewable. They are interested in profits after all. If renewable energy was the cheapest why are developing countries building coal plants. Do they just want to throw their money away.

[@Guvament_bs]

@duncancairncross I gave a response containing some facts but for that reason it was pulled.

[@duncancairncross]

@@Guvament_bs I like Nuclear - unfortunately its simply too expensive - Wind, Solar and Storage have massively dropped in cost since the 70,s - now less than 5% of the cost then Nuclear has NOT dropped in cost They always have the "promise" of cheaper - but never the actuality

[@allangraham970]

If The tech companies are relying on having a nuclear power plant built soon, they will be out of business as solar and batteries can be deployed many years earlier. Microsoft is trying to have the shut down 3 mile island nuclear power plant recommissioned. Guess they think it is quicker to commission than build. Just getting the permits to build a nuclear plant will take for ever. There lots of people ant nuclear that will delay things

[@johnmightymole2284]

The last 50 years usa installed more batteries than the previous 1,000 years.

[@ComeJesusChrist]

Delusion, delusion, delusion!

[@mikeshafer]

I’m quite bullish on the nuclear renaissance we are seeing in the US. Solar on your roof, wind and hydro and nuclear provides 24/7 power. All good things.

[@theblight]

There is no nuclear renaissance.. just a lot of hype from big data users Claiming they don’t need renewables now because they will have nuclear by 2035. Unlikely

[@JohnSmith-ux3tt]

When is Australia going to shutdown all the remaining coal fired power stations? Solar, wind and battery farms will easily pick up the missing 76 TWh.

[@mydogsbutler]

About 500 nuclear reactors would be needed to power the entire US purely by nuclear right now. Energy requirements are increasing with added demand for computing power, air conditioning and heating, and so on. Lets say in 20 year 1000 nuclear reactors would be needed less whatever non-fossil fuel sources like existing nuclear, hydro and geothermal. Still a ways to go.

[@litestuffllc7249]

Batteries don't produce power; the article tries to relate power producing nuclear to batteries that produce none. The only reason or these batteries is some folks think it is smart to build intermitten sources of power like wind and solar. Nuclear plants don't need batteries they run 24 hours straight sun or no sun; wind or no wind. The battery problem becomes staggering if you consider there can be weeks even months you have little solar or wind. Solar is a poor producer in winter; wind is internittent; only useful in limited areas; wind is inadequate in most areas to be useful. Total solar and wind is about 5%; nukes about 19% of US power production.

[@daveborinski3021]

Sam, batteries consume power; they don’t generate power. And I do mean consume. My Tesla Powerwalls, for example, consume 50% of their capacity per month to just maintain themselves. It’s not close to a 1 for 1 input GWh to output GWh. You need to go back to the drawing board.

[@i6power30]

@@daveborinski3021 50% loss? Wow that's a lot. Do you store them outside in cold weather maybe?

[@roberto4188]

@@i6power30 You lose when you convert AC to DC. You get better results charging batteries using DC.

[@daveborinski3021]

@@i6power30 No, they are in the garage in FL and never in the cold. I was surprised as well. The consumption is kind of hidden as it’s a rounding error compared to the system’s production. So many of the report show 0 but download the details and it’s ~50%.

[@paulc6766]

@@roberto4188 Yes.

[@guringai]

BS mate. Round trip efficiency is around 85%

[@L8KY]

Have we had any storage battery fires so far?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

People also forget that empty rooftops are perfect for PV panels, and grid electricity is not needed when the sunshines 🌞 With home batteries, grid electricity is not needed when the 🌞 sets. Max grid demand, and it's cashflow will STOP. Nuclear owner needs 247 cashflow Grid owners need 247 cashflow Both have a massive economic problem. The grid could be a bigger problem. It is 10 times bigger investment and NEEDS more cash daily.

[@vic321344]

And you forget the maximum solar power you get from the sun is around 1.2 kW/sqm. Efficiency of solar panels is around 40%max. So you will get 500W/sqm in best conditions. That is not a lot. Rooftops are not enough to pay your electricity needs.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@vic321344 0.5kw x 5hrs x 33m² = 83kWh daily. My supply is 50cents kWh, so $41 daily tax-free savings if I used that much. 5cents kWh Feed-in rate, not much. My savings could be $27 daily plus a little feed in $.

[@vic321344]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 You will not get perfect conditions for 5 hr. Especially in winter you will get nothing. In rain you will get nothing.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@vic321344 I am just saying when the sunshines the nuclear electricity that needs 247 cashflow has a problem. It has 247 fixed costs that it needs to spread out over 24hrs. With batteries then when the sunsets grid electricity is not needed and nuclear 247 cashflow problem gets worse. But the grid has a massive 247 cashflow problem because it is a bigger capital investment that needs bigger cashflow 247. 10times bigger than the generation capital investment.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@vic321344 just saying nuclear economics is 247 cashflow. Nuclear electricity supply can not even peak when the work needs to get done. If the sun shines and the batteries are full.

[@kenwallace6493]

I'm all for battery energy storage but we must not forget that we need long-term storage as well. Long term will encompass months to years, a time frame batteries cannot do. I don't think nuclear is the answer here because of cost and efficiency. Nucear is a heat engine that wastes twice as much heat as electricity and occasionally has to be shut down when the cooling medium (air/water) exceeds safe limits. It also needs to run at 100%, 24/7 to make sense so it does not mix well with renewables. One thought is to use the vast underground caverns (like used to store natural gas in CA that blew out recently) to store compressed air along with bidirectional turbines.

[@paulc6766]

Don't need long term storage, only storage as back up.

[@wertigon]

What is required is peaker plants for Dunkelflaute, the rest batteries can cover. Easily. 95% of the grid can be powered by SWB, and for the 90% of humanity that live in the Sun Belt, 100% SWB is both possible and likely. For the other 10%, winter Nuclear might be a factor. We shall see. Most of the grid will be powered by whatever is cheapest and countries like Australia, Denmark and Norway are leading the charge. :)

[@imconsequetau5275]

Traditional nuclear, using pressurized water reactors, runs cooler and is less efficient because the danger of hydrogen gas formation must be avoided. The newer molten salt reactor can run much hotter and therefore, efficiently.

[@wertigon]

@@imconsequetau5275 Great. Let me know when the first commercial, ready-to-be-mass-produced reactor is online :)

[@rockp5396]

Hey Sam, has Tony Seba estimated when the cost of batteries will bottom-out?

[@TSSINVEST]

BUY $EOSE If you like the sector.

[@davidlloyd1526]

Let's face it: solar is cheap!

[@Guvament_bs]

But sufficient battery storage is not.

[@bbasmdc]

Solar appears cheap because they are allowed to exclude the cost of battery backup for the period of time required to stabilse the feed. If battery backup was included solar and wind would look a lot more expensive than they are. Also, they need to include the cost of safe recycling and disposal - because it's included in the cost of nuclear, for example. We have already generated more solar panel waste than 70 years of nuclear waste. Unlike nuclear waste, the waste from renewables is as toxic in 100 years as it is today (full of toxic metals), and also unlike nuclear waste, renewable waste is not regulated. It ends up on landfills in Bangladesh where kids will burn it to try to get some silver or cobalt, inhaling toxic fumes as they do so.

[@ComeJesusChrist]

It’s not cheap at all and neither is storage by these toxic batteries.

[@giulianozunino324]

You talk only about batteries. 1) But what about others kinds of storage like pumped hydro, or thermal storage etc. that cost less than batteries 2) what about interconnecting the grids, for integrating California photovoltaic and Texas wind? 3) when will the static storage will be mainly based on sodium batteries? 4) which is in America the capacity of the industry of batteries recycling?

[@dfend451]

If a solar equipped household makes excess electricity, is it sent back to the actual mega packs?

[@andreandre1051]

👍👍

[@quantumbacon]

Sam is constantly conflating energy storage with energy generation, and constantly mixing capacity up with output. As a poster child for ignorance I use these examples to teach my students critical thinking and how to cut through the tripe.

[@HygienistDentist]

Yay

[@johndoyle4723]

But but but, I am constantly being told batteries only last 2-3 years, and then only if they do not burst into flames, maybe that only applies to EVs. Thanks well done Tesla and others, the speed of progress is exponential.

[@imconsequetau5275]

You're being lied to, gaslighting. The older electric cars didn't have temperature controlled cells. That's long in the past. Gas and hybrid vehicles have 5000 times more vehicle fires [per vehicle] compared to Tesla. Only the GM Volt had significant numbers, and those were recalled.

[@mickmack9333]

Batteries can only help in the short term but is just ineffective as long term mass storage

[@bbasmdc]

Oh wow - I guess this is the slanted way to talk about this topic. 3:08 "They are actually helping prevent power blackouts". Technically correct - but what causes those blackouts? Answer: Unreliable solar and wind power. And if the cost of battery backup was included in solar power costs I think you'd find nuclear doesn't look that bad at all. And how can you compare batteries as "the equivalent of X nuclear power plants"? That makes no sense. As other people have pointed out, batteries just store energy...they don't generate it. Nuclear plants don't need batteries because they can run 24/7/365. For example...Google, Amazon and Microsoft are planning data centers that will consume 1 GW of electrical power. The largest battery farm in Europe (which is in Belgium), when fully charged, could power one of those data centers for about 45 minutes. That's why the hyperscalers are investing in nuclear power. There is no green Gigawatt scale power generation that can match nuclear in that respect. I agree with you that nuclear seems expensive today. But that's because nations like the USA and UK have literally forgotten how to build nuclear plants, and also seem incapable of building any type of large infrastructure project on time or on budget. The hyperscalers have so much money, and so much to lose if they miss the AI opportunity that, I can assure you, they *will* solve this problem to get nuclear deployed, and they'll buy enough politicians to make it happen.

[@roberto4188]

Sometimes utilities will cause a blackout. On purpose.

[@damfadd]

There are many reasons for blackouts and mostly nothing to do with solar and wind ....balancing the grid is what batteries do best and this has been missed in allllll the comments

[@bbasmdc]

@@damfadd I agree. But in California and Texas the increased instability can be directly traced to solar and wind. The grids were designed for base load - it's as simple as that. If you need to redesign the grid to pander to unreliable solar and wind then that cost needs to be factored into the LCOE metric for that power source. Right now it is not, which makes nuclear appear more expensive and solar/wind less expensive than they really are. As for "mostly nothing to do with solar/wind" that is a very broad statement and I'd like to see the evidence. I can imagine it might be valid for some countries but not for the older power grids we find in N America and Europe.

[@bbasmdc]

@@roberto4188 I'd be interested to see an example of that. I guess they do deliberately cause blackouts, but the only times I'm aware of that happening is to protect critical users like water supplies, hospitals, police, fire and ambulance. And increasingly the need to protect the grid is triggered by the instability of renewables.

[@bbasmdc]

@@damfadd "balancing the grid is what batteries do best and this has been missed in allllll the comments". This is a great point. In the past the UK used pumped hydro and gas turbines as rapid response to demand spikes. Batteries could be a great alternative, but combined with base load like nuclear, rather than unreliable feeds like solar/wind.

[@calamityjean1525]

What is your source for this information? You didn't tell us how you learned this.

[@vic321344]

batteries do not produce electricity.

[@jabbathespud]

GigaWatts != GigaWattHours. Please use the correct term in the right context.

[@Raggadish.]

Do you mean it can store 20 GW-hours of energy, or provide power equally to 20 GW for 1 hour?

[@guringai]

Thats exactly why Duttons nuclear fantasy is silly.

[@budawang77]

Dutton was just looking for an issue to wedge Labor.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

Sam without putting out numbers that show the total cost for the different system and doing a comparison it is mostly just hype. It is hard to win converts when you don’t actually given any substance.

[@tomiputra3720]

At what cost? 😅

[@fernandobanos7255]

Electricity production will be 300 percent of todays production by 2050.

[@matthewgilmore2025]

Where are all these batteries coming from? Surely, they are not all domestically mfg. I would be interested in some investigative reporting on this subject. Funny how we can tarrif EV batteries at 102% in the US, but apparently, the sky is the limit if the chinese batteries are used in the grid?

[@SuperUbuntudude]

[@larryc1616]

💙California #1 Always and Forever!⚡️🇺🇲

[@PeterJamieson-h2p]

Batteries are not going to work at 54c

[@DaremoTen]

I see these battery installations, and I always think, "Why are they above ground?" It makes no sense to me. Batteries are susceptible to temperature variables, so wouldn't it make sense to put them below the frost line where the temperature is stable, and can be further controlled with heat exchangers? Further more, the above ground area could be used for more PV installations, cutting transmission loses to a minimum. Maybe I'm over thinking this...

[@pin65371]

Because now you are increasing the cost to install them and not just by a little bit. You'd most likely 100x the cost to install. One of the biggest expenses with nuclear is the civil and concrete work when building the plant. To put all those batteries underground would cost way more.

[@DaremoTen]

@@pin65371 Battery installations do not need nuclear power plant levels of infrastructure. They need a hole. They need some weatherproofing. They need the hole filled back in. That's basically it.

[@imconsequetau5275]

The battery / shipping containers do have insulation. Power for heating/cooling is just a line item on operating expenses.

[@GM4ThePeople]

EV can u pls do an energy -debate- conversation between Mark Mills/Doomberg & Tony Seba/your bad self? For the Future! For the lulz!! o/

[@ADobbin1]

Its not equivalent to 20 nuclear reactors because they don't generate power. You still don't have 20 Gigawatts of needed power being generated.

[@jjamespacbell]

The 2 hour or 4 hour battery is just a convenience for calculating how many batteries are needed. For example my 2 Powewall 3's store energy during the day but they supply my home with energy through the evening and early morning a period of 10 to 14 hours, more if I don't have the pool pump or AC running.

[@beniaminosani2719]

Loooool, equivalent in kWp is not equivalent at all, capacity factor of a npp is 90%, with 20 gW of nuclear you would power 2/3 of California for the entire year without need of storage, back ups and grid expansion

[@MrAwabi]

The German dunkelflaut(e) ..... hilarious ..... BTW the Germans have real GERMAN ANGST about the dunkelflaute. Dead Serious ... without "Grundlast" powerplants the country is doomed 😉

[@mattyb1624]

And in california they ask people not to charge their EVs at home due to rolling blackouts

[@Berretotube]

EVs DOMINATING!

[@mattyb1624]

@@Berretotube no, EVs require too much energy

[@Berretotube]

@@mattyb1624 No - the opposite. EVs are 50% more efficient than gas cars (gas cars lose all that energy through heat, noise and vibration). EVs = 50% more efficient.

[@mattyb1624]

@Berretotube which is why you need a 1 ton battery to get the same range as a 50L fuel tank. Yeah, efficient

[@mattyb1624]

@Berretotube they asked people to stop charging their cars, it's a fact, look it up.

[@0keme]

Vamos Martin !!!!

[@alinthemind]

Are the majority or all of these batteries from China?

[@petersz98]

Batteries cannot produce power, only store power!

[@vincewhite5087]

Can’t wait till Tesla’s new mega battery plant is finished in China.

[@beatreuteler]

Dear Viking: I find the title is incredibly far from ok. Batteries are a storage, power plants are a maker of electrical energy. It must be clear to you that batteries can NEVER EVER be equivalent, completely regardless of the size.

[@PMI551]

You going to be okay?

[@budawang77]

Not necessarily. He could be alluding to the amount of power being discharged into the grid over a 24 hour period being equivalent.

[@beatreuteler]

@@budawang77 Even if so, the title does not hint to this and is therfore greatly misleading for lay people.

[@eddieadams4770]

Elon Musk says 100 square miles of solar with batteries could power the entire nation. What are we waiting on? Do 100, one square mile solar plants right now!

[@grantbuttenshaw]

That is a really silly idea....it's nothing like that...go do the maths...

[@theblight]

Elon is way wrong. 100 sq miles is 64,000 acres. We need 12 million acres to provide our current electricity consumption, and much more to replace fossil fuels in their many uses. PV magazine, March 2022. “ Solar + Food …..”

[@Dingdeng1337]

❌I'm pretty sure, Elon said, "a square🔳 of 100x100 miles", which would be 10.000 mi²! - In fact, it would be a bit more of about 125x125 to 135x135 miles, which makes Elon's calculation quite sound (he thinks in orders of magnitude).

[@DifferentAlgorithm-vw8ig]

Elon also supports nuclear.

[@grantbuttenshaw]

@Dingdeng1337 that's if you stack the panels edge to edge....have a look at the density per square km of current solar farms....it would need to be 10x the size again...

[@mike160543]

The price of electricity in California is the highest in the US. 20 nuclear reactors will produce power 24/7. How long will the batteries recycle power? Typical Greenie half truth

[@alexander7298]

GW GWH ?? comparing apples and oranges please stop using battery equivalent nuclear power if you do not understand basics , the dunkel flaute is about three weeks in germany, no battery pack will help out there. An average nuclear unit is about 1000 MW. The current battery package in california is about 11,000 MW. Most modern battery units have a factor 2 (optimistic) for looking at total GWH capacity. So total battery package installed in california is good for replacing one nuclear reactor for 11000*2 GWH/1000= 22 hours . There is 46,874 MW solar installed in california end of 2023. So battery/solar 11000*2/46874= 0,47 hrs now with solar on GWH base: California generated 68,816 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity from solar power in 2023, up 9% from 2022, 68816/8700 hours* 2,5(sun shines only during the day) = 20 GW average solar power batteries provides 11*2/20= 1,1 hour storage of average solar power. These battery units will only be installed at unstable grids where there is a very high price fluctuation. i.e. negative energy pricing followed by high pricing on a short term. Guess what is causing fluctuations: solar and wind energy

[@afs5609]

All this power storage & solar wind generation sounds great, my main concern is the the maintenance on all this new equipment, as just been witnessed with the power disaster at Broken Hill, the power supplier was found asleep at the switch when the power transmission towers were blown over due to a wind storm & the power backup generators were found unreliable if not broken due to a lack of maintenance, will the same happen with the batteries/solar panels/wind turbines, meaning as we always find when its too late, the utilities that are owned/controlled by big business seems to put profit before maintenance of plant.

[@aftonline]

Can't anyone else see the logical fallacy in the title of this video? Batteries don't GENERATE power, they only STORE it. You can build as much energy storage as you like but without baseload power generation to charge those batteries they are useless. Yes, solar can top them up during the day, but they can be discharged really fast during periods of peak power demand.

[@TwoShoedDude]

Baseload isn’t necessary if there is suitably sized solar and storage. That’s the point. Sure, maybe keep some peaker plants around, just to be sure that peaks on high demand days are met. Or just add more renewables and storage. Baseload plants are the dinosaurs before the asteroid hit.

[@pin65371]

@@TwoShoedDude that must be why the hyper scalers are all looking at nuclear now. The most technologically advanced companies that are essentially massive data companies dont know what they are talking about. I'm definitely going to listen to people in youtube comment sections over Google engineers.

[@frenchydampier2209]

You have no idea of how many batteries are out there. In the last 4 years TESLA has sold the equivalent 20 nuclear power plants worth of batteries. That just here in America. Austrailia is shutting down coal power plants like crazy. ( and they are rich with coal). Because solar plus battery is cheaper!! Cheaper than natural gas peaker plants and AMERICA. Has the cheapest natural gas in the world.

[@pin65371]

@@frenchydampier2209 20 nuclear power plants worth of power for 1 hour. There is 24 hours in a day. Even with all the money that California has spent on renewables they still have 39% of their power come from natural gas.

[@TwoShoedDude]

@@pin65371 oh ok, so let’s see, option A) is based on tech that is ramping production quickly while costs fall, can be installed rapidly, has low ongoing maintenance, insurance, and decommissioning costs, while option B) has higher costs across the board, takes around a decade to commission, and comes with the added bonus of geopolitical risk? Any base load plant, nuclear or otherwise, if it does not come with cheaper and more secure supply than solar+battery, will be a millstone around the necks of citizens for decades to come. A monument to shortsightedness.

[@litestuffllc7249]

ok - do batteries generate power? No. Nuclear power plants generate electrical power; batteries store power.

[@richardmenz3257]

Yeah def miss leading, but it turns extra unstable power into 20 stable power of nuclear power + what ever the overage is when not storing.

[@Raggadish.]

What if I told you, wind turbines and solar panels do. It is bleeding obvious if you watch the video.

[@larryc1616]

Solar, wind, geothermal energy are stored in batteries for overnight use

[@richardmenz3257]

@@larryc1616 though geo didn’t have to be stored.

[@litestuffllc7249]

@@larryc1616 Thats right; those provide energy; in the UsA however that is around 5% of all energy produced.It won't replace much. If you are any good at calculating how many batteries would be needed for a large city to be 100% electric for even one night.. take that figure and figure out how much would be needed to power 9 billion people - it isn't even close to being realistic - but do it yourself; you'll be brought to reality.