On the battery front, there's been some developments in the past couple of years... developments that mean that when it's time to replace the traction battery in my Prius, it won't be with a lithium ion battery. It'll be a sodium ion battery (which has already been available aftermarket for my car for the past year).

While the energy density is slightly less than that of lithium ion, sodium ion batteries do away with the three big problems of lithium: mining lithium, lithium ion battery's tendency toward self-combustion under certain conditions, and the decrease in efficiency of lithium ion batteries in colder conditions.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 05:00 pm: Edit

There are also the new silver batteries which are much improved over the original ones. That is partly what drove silver from $25 to $125 and then dropped it to $75.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Solid State batteries are probably going to hit big in a couple years.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, May 18, 2026 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Since we are on hydro....

Haven't heard much on "Tidal Generators" in years....

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 - 02:15 am: Edit

Mark

The UK did have a huge one planned for 'Swansea Bay' - and costs went up AND there was significant environmental issues (Marine Life would have been majorly effected - spawning routes etc).

Can't remember which was the more major reason - but it got cancelled.

I think smaller "free floating" long barriers are being used rather than larger wide barriers so some are being built.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 - 02:21 am: Edit

Duplicate Post - FEAR

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 - 05:02 pm: Edit

I heard something about floating tidal bouys, the bouy is anchored, and rises and falls with the tide/waves, allegedly generating noticable power at a reasonable cost.

I'm dubious, seems likely to be expensive, and it suffers from intermitancy problems, but someone was working on it.

OTOH, the ability to draw from waves as well as tide is an advantage to a float rather than a tidal barrier.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 - 05:20 pm: Edit

The issue has got to be that the ocean will try to destroy whatever they put in place

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Early tries were set up a river bed, just far enough for the tide to have an affect and close enough where it wasn't just the river flow doing the work....

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, June 25, 2026 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Not gonna lie: if this fusion reactor design - which just got licensed for buildout in Washington - works, it's exciting!

https://www.helionenergy.com/technology

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, June 25, 2026 - 05:13 pm: Edit

I don't know. I may well be wrong, and I hope I am. But I got kind of a bad feeling as I read their FAQs. Not that they are fraudulent, so much as - over-optimistic - in their assessments.

I wish I could be more specific but so far it's just that uncomfortable "feeling"...

Well, as I said, I might very well be wrong. A "bad feeling" is hardly conclusive.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 25, 2026 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Hot fusion, can't you see? I've got a fever of 10 million and 3!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug1qRiLUwac&list=RDUg1qRiLUwac&start_radio=1

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Friday, June 26, 2026 - 03:10 am: Edit

Given how strongly renewables is going I wonder if fusion ever will be reality.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, June 26, 2026 - 11:54 am: Edit

Building out a robust network of renewable is a National Security issue.

Coup in Oil-istan? Yawn.

War between Crudelandia and The Republic of Petroliia? Not our problem.

Of course, you need to go way over the minimums. So Solar required on rooftops (say, all new and rebuilds over 50% of the value), giant wind farms in places that don't have much other use (like Southern New Mexico. I worked there and if a place was designed to be nuked, that is it.)

There are also micro scale wind generators you can mount on your roof.

It sure would take a lot out of the petro dollar funded terrorist networks...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, June 26, 2026 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Personally, I'm rooting for wind, solar, fusion, responsible implementation of fission, and geothermal. It's good to have a diversified generation portfolio.

Unfortunately, what we see a lot of is people who are all in for one or maybe two of the above and who lobby hard against anything else as a "distraction from the One True Fix".

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, June 26, 2026 - 09:19 pm: Edit

DOD is planning on a series of micro reactors on a number of military installations around the country.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 26, 2026 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I think we should try everything to get more energy, renewables preferably.

However, I reject the idea of using taxpayer money to subsidize energy generation systems that don't produce market value energy. I have no problem with subsidizing one or three "facilities" of each type just to develop and improve the technology. We currently subsidize 191 ethanol plants which spend a lot of money burning more gasoline than they produce (counting the fuel to raise the corn).

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, June 26, 2026 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Ethanol was for a world out of petroleum, which turned out to not be the case.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 12:01 am: Edit

Now ethanol has a political support base that has significant influence in some states(example:Iowa farmers), not to mention its developing a vertically integrated infrastructure (cooperatives, ethanol production plants, trucking companies that depend on shipping corn, ethanol and a limited number of other refined products).

The political class inadvertently created a monster, another example of the law of unintended consequences.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 10:37 am: Edit

I'm right there with you on ending the ethanol subsidies, Steve; problem is, corn growers will let go of it only when you pry it from their cold dead hands, and the farm lobby has outsized influence on Congress.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 10:57 am: Edit

Jessica: You're right about that political power base. That's why the only solution to this mess is to give me absolute power for a few years after which I'll stand trial in the senate for anything I did that was bad.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 12:00 pm: Edit

"I reject the idea of using taxpayer money to subsidize energy generation"

I think that ofter the pilot projects, we let Adam Smith decide.

The answers a google search provides may surprise you.

Nuclear: $0.08 - $0.22
Coal: $0.07 - $0.17
Natural Gas (Combined Cycle): $0.05 -$0.11
Utility-Scale Solar: $0.04 - $0.09
Onshore Wind: $0.04 - $0.09

"cost per kwh for electricity by source"

But subsidies come in many flavors; from ethanol to credits on building, black lung expenses to the cost of being in the Middle East.

I agree with SVC, taxpayer support for research & pilot programs.

Search "subsidy cost per barrel of oil" which may surprise you.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Google inquiry for UNSUBSIDIZED per kilowatt hour of electricity:

Unsubsidized LCOE ranges (in dollars per \(kWh\)) for newly built generation in the U.S. highlight current differences between renewables and conventional sources:

Renewable Generation
Solar (Utility-Scale): \(\$0.038\) to \(\$0.078\) per \(kWh\)
Wind (Onshore): \(\$0.037\) to \(\$0.086\) per \(kWh\)
Wind (Offshore): \(\$0.070\) to \(\$0.157\) per \(kWh\)

Conventional & Fossil Generation
Natural Gas (Combined Cycle): \(\$0.048\) to \(\$0.107\) per \(kWh\)
Nuclear: \(\$0.141\) to \(\$0.220\) per \(kWh\)Oil /
Gas Peaking: \(\$0.149\) to \(\$0.251\) per \(kWh\)”

Results are somewhat different than what was posted by Mike G.

The perhaps biggest misstatement Mike posted was essentially “New Project” valuations, don’t know if mike was not aware of the difference or was “cherry picking” data to color the results to support his position….

The point is, the hey day of large Nuclear power construction was decades ago, iirc, there are really only three “new” projects for nuclear plants that would qualify for. “new development costs”, one of which is Three Mile Island (site of a nuclear accident decades ago.)

F.Y.I. The three mile island project is a completion of units #3 and #4 that were canceled immediately after the TMI accident, but now has been approved for completion not to provide electricity for residential or commercial customers, but rather to power a data farm.

In any event, Mikes numbers for nuclear energy comparison included development costs for “new development” where there was virtually zero new plants being built.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Unless your willing to write a Post Graduate Disitation on it - I think the numbers are all meaningless.

You will need to do so much research to find out the real information AND give evidence to support those statements.

Do you include all the historical cost of 'research' on 'Energy Source X'?

Do you include decommissing costs (and that is what makes Nuclear alot more expensive IMHO)?

Non-Renewable - Do you include the cost of failed exploration - you drill 10 oil wells - find Oil in 4 - how do you factor the failed 6 wells in?

(You could also include poor location renewables - Wind was good in location Z 5 years ago - and wind is just now lower than what it was).

How about Power Plants damaged by natural disasters (or conlficts)?

How about Material costs lost through accidents?

How about 'reserve' energy sources for Renewables when they don't produce** or Fossil Fuels to cover maintenance.

** - Eveything will have some down time for maintenance and only Tidal could be said for Renewable that could 'save' some energy to cover the knonw periods of low or zero production (although Hydro+Wind+Solar MIGHT get close to 100%).

So - anyone can quote figues, but the basis of those figures need to be explained.

So Mike and Jeff - is it fair to ask, which relevant aspects do your numbers/Google take into account?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 27, 2026 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Paul is correct. Figures don't lie but liars do figure. You don't know if the numbers are telling you anything unless you know if all of them used the same calculation.

Here is a totally unrelated example. The infant mortality rate in the US is far higher than it is in France, but in France, babies who die within 24 hours of birth are not counted. Include them, and the numbers are almost identical.