No,batteries are expensive,Carbon intense ,and provide at most 4 hours of very expensive energy, this plant provides 900MW for 80 years at which time they replace the reactors and keep going. Batteries are used to give time for natural gas turbines to get going so they extend the use of fossil fuels.
Indonesia's 7×500MWe ThorCon walk-away safe liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters - load follower &/or base loader (TMSR) cost $1200/kWatt and all-in pre-profit costs are less than $40/Megawatt.hour with a 43kW/m² footprint and less than 5% waste of a solid fueled Uranium requiring only 300years secured storage. (CF battery storage costs 3 times as much)
Indonesia has never ordered the ThorCon,it could end global warming, but one country has to order it,Indonesia has plenty of coal and no one seems worried about climate change.
Lotsa blab, but one wonders about the sanity of presenting a bar chart that shows ASPIRATIONAL, ESTIMATED costs, versus real costs of tried and tested sources of energy. We have absolutely no the slightest idea whether this design will work. Almost every other first try has ended up in many bad surprises with massive cost overruns, and serious problems with chemistry, metallurgy, reliability, corrosion, servicing, and heat exchanger and core longevity. The company has to be prepared for one or more false starts, and they obviously are not capitalized well enough for several years and several redesigns.
No comparison of this 50 year old method with Thorium Molten Salt Reactors that can consume "Waste" nuclear fuel & weapons grade, down to depleted Uranium, until only Caesium137 and Strontium90 remains with half-lives of about 30years, so needing secure storage for only 300years instead of over 10,000 years.
I agree, but I'm still very much in favor of these. They are already approved by the NRC which is a huge step. I love the idea of thorium MSRs everywhere, but we need solutions now and this is still an improvement over current (gen 2) reactors in basically every regard (and Gen2's aren't bad to begin with). We will see how it shakes out but at least in the US, this kind of tech is likely to be deployed at least 10 years before thorium MSR which is huge.
@@paulbedichek2679 BS Stop spouting outrageous NEA lies. There is over 80,000 tons of commercial high-level waste in cooling ponds and casks scattered all over within spitting distance of every major city in the U.S. There are mountains of radioactive acidic tailings and million gallon radioactive sludge lagoons on mining sites. The average reactor creates 10-30 tons of high level waste and 50-70 tons of intermediate and low-level waste per fuel cycle. They have been doing that for 75 years. Pile on all the waste at defense sites, illegal dumping sites, irradiated ground at nuclear test sites and contaminated soil and grounwater on aging reactor sites. Then include all of the radioactive reactor parts from neutron activation and the football field lie is ridiculous. Besides, stick all those fission products together and you will create a China syndrome. You nukies are unsurpassed in your ability to tell lies.
SMRs = S is for small chance of succeeding in even getting a prototype going prior to 2010. M is for massive cost to construct and operate and pat for the death and environmental damage they cause; even more massive cost to dispose of millions of years of radioactive waste safely. R is for radioactive fission products and transuranics that never existed prior to 1940.
