• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 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
          link
          fedilink
          01 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
            link
            fedilink
            11 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
              link
              fedilink
              11 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.

              • AbolishBorderControlsNow
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                @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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 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
        link
        fedilink
        11 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
      link
      fedilink
      21 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!]

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          nuclear uses lots of energy to build. Even windmills use fibreglass.

          It may be more expensive to build, but not because it’s more energy intensive. Especially when you look at capacity. It is by far the most efficient source, requiring much less material and energy per generation capacity.

          • AbolishBorderControlsNow
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            @Claidheamh

            That’s a big claim, and having watched a #nuclear power station being built I struggle to agree. Especially if you look at full life cycle from mining uranium to disposal.

            Also most of the work with a #windmill is establishing the site. Once done repairs and upgrades are cheap.

            And #renewables are quick. Chuck a spare at it and you’ll have useful energy in a few months. The main problem in the UK is government obstructing them.

            And they’re still being built.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m challenging the claim about energy use, not cost. Uranium mining is a rounding error in this regard.

              What you’re missing from seeing a power station being built is how much energy it produces. Being conservative, a single reactor generates as much energy as around 1000 wind turbines. And that’s without taking into account the full life cycle, which can probably 3-4x that number.

              The energy density numbers of nuclear power are such completely different orders of magnitude to other energy sources that people usually have trouble understanding them in real world terms.

              • AbolishBorderControlsNow
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                @Claidheamh

                Well zeros can make a big difference and the cost is not to be sniffed at. Our local reactor is looking to cost 40 billion. You could run every school and hospital in Wales for 2 years with that amount of money and have spare change to build a couple of tidal lagoons.

                You can easily build 1000 wind turbines for the cost of one reactor and do it in less time.

                Of course, when they get fusion going…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 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.