15 ms·

> They only work well at small percentage of generation when you have enough hydropower backup What do you see as a small percentage? A country like The Nether

by flor1s 6y ago

> They only work well at small percentage of generation when you have enough hydropower backup What do you see as a small percentage? A country like The Netherlands is generating between 10% and 50% renewable energy without significant storage capacity (it's summer so a lot of that energy comes from solar, but in winter the yields from wind will be higher), and we are one of the worst countries in the EU when it comes to renewables. I thought the need for storage is mostly a problem if you want to reach a high percentage of generation using renewables. Anyway, energy storage also seems beneficial if you want to build a nuclear infrastructure, so it seems like a problem that has to be tackled regardless. > They are cheapest because they are subsidised on one hand, and on the other hand, nuclear is penalized by lawsuits and regulartions and inspections I don't think subsidies are really a problem. Weren't the nuclear power infrastructures of France and Ukraine mostly build using state subsidies? The amount of subsidies needed to build renewables is also decreasing. Some might argue subsidies aren't necessary anymore, but we still need massive infrastructure investments to create a smart grid, more interconnectors, etc. Also, nuclear energy might be regulated too much, but I'm not sure how much can be saved without hurting safety.

lightgreen 6y ago
> A country like The Netherlands is generating between 10% and 50% renewable energy without significant storage capacity Quoting wikipedia: Renewable energy sources, such as biomass, wind power and solar power, produce 12% of the total electricity. This is a small percentage. > I thought the need for storage is mostly a problem if you want to reach a high percentage of generation using renewables. This is correct. If we want to generate only small percentage using renewables, we can simply have excessive fossil power plants and turn them off when renewables work. > energy storage also seems beneficial if you want to build a nuclear infrastructure Barely. Nuclear can work at full power constantly, and can be easily slowed down and then sped up any time. Of course if we had extremely cheap batteries we could make nuclear work full power all the time and save excessive electricity. So far we don't even have moderately expensive batteries. > I don't think subsidies are really a problem. It is not a problem. It partially explains why renewables are "cheap" and nuclear is "expensive". > Weren't the nuclear power infrastructures of France and Ukraine mostly build using state subsidies? I don't know about France. It seems to be a government monopoly, so there are very different rules when it works this way. In Ukraine because of very sad state of economy, they seem to not build any nuclear power plants for a long time. > Also, nuclear energy might be regulated too much, but I'm not sure how much can be saved without hurting safety. As pointed many times in this thread, historically, including the worst nuclear disaster Chernobyl, nuclear is much safer than any other electricity generation method (including renewables). If something need to be regulated for safety, it is anything except nuclear.

by flor1s 6y ago

lightgreen 6y ago

> A country like The Netherlands is generating between 10% and 50% renewable energy without significant storage capacity Quoting wikipedia: Renewable energy sources, such as biomass, wind power and solar power, produce 12% of the total electricity. This is a small percentage. > I thought the need for storage is mostly a problem if you want to reach a high percentage of generation using renewables. This is correct. If we want to generate only small percentage using renewables, we can simply have excessive fossil power plants and turn them off when renewables work. > energy storage also seems beneficial if you want to build a nuclear infrastructure Barely. Nuclear can work at full power constantly, and can be easily slowed down and then sped up any time. Of course if we had extremely cheap batteries we could make nuclear work full power all the time and save excessive electricity. So far we don't even have moderately expensive batteries. > I don't think subsidies are really a problem. It is not a problem. It partially explains why renewables are "cheap" and nuclear is "expensive". > Weren't the nuclear power infrastructures of France and Ukraine mostly build using state subsidies? I don't know about France. It seems to be a government monopoly, so there are very different rules when it works this way. In Ukraine because of very sad state of economy, they seem to not build any nuclear power plants for a long time. > Also, nuclear energy might be regulated too much, but I'm not sure how much can be saved without hurting safety. As pointed many times in this thread, historically, including the worst nuclear disaster Chernobyl, nuclear is much safer than any other electricity generation method (including renewables). If something need to be regulated for safety, it is anything except nuclear.