• Wirrvogel@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Solar ans wind power will never ever be a good baseline energy production méthod. It’s complementary.

      https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2023/german-net-power-generation-in-first-half-of-2023-renewable-energy-share-of-57-percent.html

      No, it is a perfekt baseline energy production method. France is buying our renewable energy, because it can’t produce enough with its broken nuclear power plants and the ones not producing full because of the drought. The numbers do not lie.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also, what I see in that graph is that your grid’s baseline isn’t renewables, but fossil fuels. That’s shameful.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, and if you hadn’t closed your nuclear plants you wouldn’t have needed to rely on carbon-emitting russian gas-burning power plants.

            Renewables are great. But like anything else, they’re not suitable for all use cases. And where they’re not suitable you have to use greenhouse gas emitting power plants. Wouldn’t it be much preferable if those were instead NPPs?

            People arguing against nuclear power are arguing for oil/gas/coal, whether they know it or not.

    • Sodis@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah yes, 4th generation nuclear reactors will save us, as will fusion reactors. We could make stuff work with existing technology, but that’s somehow not good enough. The whole future plans section of the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor reads like the technological challenges of these type of reactors are not as solved as you state it in your post.

      • Sodis@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, you can potentially design them in a way, that you can control the energy output more easily. However, then they will be even less economical than they are now. If you run at lower output, you waste more fuel.

          • Svante@mastodon.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            @MattMastodon @Sodis Only about 40% of demand can be directly met from volatiles (wind and solar), i. e. no intermediate storage. The rest has to come from »backup« or »storage« or however you call it.

            Current storage tech is still almost 100% pumped hydro. Batteries have not made a real dent there yet. But pumped hydro is not enough by far, even potentially, and batteries have a long way to go to be even as scalable as pumped hydro.

            So, backup. The only clean, scalable backup is nuclear.

            • AbolishBorderControlsNow@mastodonapp.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @Ardubal @Sodis

              We have to be careful. Different counties have very differnt energy make ups. I live in the UK where nuclear is

              I don’t understand where you got 40% from. This seems arbutrary.

              In the UK Nuclear is 15% and renewables about 40% (over the last year) we mainly burn gas for the rest.

              • Svante@mastodon.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                @MattMastodon @Sodis Careful about labels. »Renewables« often includes biomass (which is just fast-track fossil tbh) and hydro (which is not so volatile). I’m talking about wind and solar specifically (volatiles).

                40% is roughly the mean capacity factor of a good mix of volatiles. This is what you can directly feed to the user from the windmill/panel, without storage. You can expand a bit by massive overbuilding, but you can’t overbuild your way out of no wind at night.

                • @Ardubal @Sodis

                  Mostly we don’t use energy at night. In the UK there is a peak in the morning. In the UK we mainly use gas to fill this. We will have to find a storage solution as nuclear can’t be upscale that quickly. Gas was meant to be used just to fill the gaps but it’s quickly become a staple.

                  We need to find a way of smoothing the graph. Energy storage is the best option in the short term.

                  Or we can vary use.

                  #nuclear #renewables

                  • Svante@mastodon.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    @MattMastodon @Sodis Again: that demand is lower at night is already factored in. Roughly 40% of demand can be directly met by volatile sources. You may think nuclear is slow to deploy, but it’s still much faster than anything that doesn’t exist.

                    The gap is 60%. Gas is a fossil fuel. Varying use is mostly a euphemism. If you hurt industry, you won’t have the industry to build clean energy sources.

        • Svante@mastodon.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @Sodis @MattMastodon Nuclear power plants can quite easily do load following. It happens regularly e. g. in France. However, since it has the lowest running costs, other sources are usually cut first as far as possible.

      • Pampa@climatejustice.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        @MattMastodon @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel

        The optimum imho is:

        1. The bulk of the generation from wind and solar, and nuclear for 15% - 20% base load. Also some Geothermal where cheap but it’s potential is small.

        2. Grids improved to cover local and intermediate renewable generation, and extended to facilitate import/export.

        3. Variable electricity pricing for demand shifting.

        The result is vastly reduced need for storage, probably batteries used intelligently in a hierarchy of grid and home, compared to the naïve “just build wind and solar and batteries.”

        Then add in:

        1. A 90% transition from personal cars to free green public transport (#FGPT), taxis, e-bikes, bicycles, and walking.

        This all needs no new technology (although for nuclear there are several advances not yet used at scale: molten salt, small, modular, U238, thorium), it needs a fraction of the rare earths, and delivers a huge in reduction steel production courtesy of car recycling.

        #Energy #Renewables #ClimateCrisis #Climate #Nuclear

        [P.S. Dams damage eco-systems so I’m not in favour of more hydro generation, and pumped hydro storage needs the spare water too.

        Biomass not “net zero” and obviously not “zero” which we actually need. It’s just more carbon burning plus extra pollution from the agriculture and other products of combustion. It increases land use, and at present the industry is full of corruption with trees being burned sometimes alongside shredded car tyres… and subsidised!]

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It can’t be scales up and down following need.

        Yes, it runs at full power most of the time. That’s what being a “baseline energy source” means.