<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>epistasis</author><text>We are just as of 2020 reaching cost effectiveness for batteries, and planning by utilities is often on five year time lines and uses outdated data, so they are slow to pick up new technology.&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, storage is ready, and even in profit driven grids like Texas&amp;#x27; ERCOT:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Citing lower costs and increased renewables, momentum continued in the growth of battery energy storage systems in 2021, roughly doubling with 1,262 MW online, compared to 640 MW in 2020. ... with the next two largest systems in Texas, namely the 102-MW Gambit Battery Energy Storage Park and the 100-MW North Fork Battery Storage Project.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.spglobal.com&amp;#x2F;marketintelligence&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;news-insights&amp;#x2F;latest-news-headlines&amp;#x2F;nearly-28-gw-of-new-us-generating-capacity-added-in-2021-led-by-wind-68435915&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.spglobal.com&amp;#x2F;marketintelligence&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;news-insights...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you want week long batteries, you&amp;#x27;ll first have to show the need for that, but something like that won&amp;#x27;t be built until it is needed: enough cheap solar and wind on the grid.&lt;p&gt;With how slow utilities are to adopt cheap new technologies, that will be a while. But cost-optimization strategies for carbon free grids tend to select a lot of excess solar and wind capacity, and almost no nuclear at all. Though I would say that those models are flawed in that they assume that nuclear &lt;i&gt;can&lt;/i&gt; be built, when the last decades have shown that it can not really be built.</text><parent_chain><item><author>simion314</author><text>&amp;gt;Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs.&lt;p&gt;That is the easier part, show me the battery deployments please , the ones that can backup the country&amp;#x2F;state for a week.</text></item><item><author>epistasis</author><text>They will be serious if they actually build it, unlike Flamanville.&lt;p&gt;While you call non-nuclear options &amp;quot;virtue signaling,&amp;quot; the attempts at building it in France and the US have been virtue signaling. We don&amp;#x27;t have the industrial capacity to build nuclear.&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs.&lt;p&gt;Locking in the high costs of nuclear, for the 60 year lifetime of a nuclear reactor, after a 15 year delay for building, is not a serious solution for climate change.</text></item><item><author>ike0790</author><text>Looks like a G20 country is serious about the impending &amp;quot;climate emergency&amp;quot;. Regardless of the motives and timing behind this, I think its great to see a country is actually being serious and practical. Anyone going on about the climate and refuses to put nuclear energy at the forefront of the conversation is unserious and is only interested in virtual signaling in my opinion.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors</title><url>https://www.politico.eu/article/france-to-build-6-new-nuclear-reactors/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sendben2</author><text>Yes. This. Storage is still expensive. Also France is already a world leader in nuclear grid energy. They already have a long history of building and maintaining nuclear plants.</text><parent_chain><item><author>simion314</author><text>&amp;gt;Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs.&lt;p&gt;That is the easier part, show me the battery deployments please , the ones that can backup the country&amp;#x2F;state for a week.</text></item><item><author>epistasis</author><text>They will be serious if they actually build it, unlike Flamanville.&lt;p&gt;While you call non-nuclear options &amp;quot;virtue signaling,&amp;quot; the attempts at building it in France and the US have been virtue signaling. We don&amp;#x27;t have the industrial capacity to build nuclear.&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs.&lt;p&gt;Locking in the high costs of nuclear, for the 60 year lifetime of a nuclear reactor, after a 15 year delay for building, is not a serious solution for climate change.</text></item><item><author>ike0790</author><text>Looks like a G20 country is serious about the impending &amp;quot;climate emergency&amp;quot;. Regardless of the motives and timing behind this, I think its great to see a country is actually being serious and practical. Anyone going on about the climate and refuses to put nuclear energy at the forefront of the conversation is unserious and is only interested in virtual signaling in my opinion.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors</title><url>https://www.politico.eu/article/france-to-build-6-new-nuclear-reactors/</url></story>