6 ms·

Whereas with lovely coal and oil we get to ignore the problem. It's just smoke until... Catastrophic climate feedback loops, mass extinction, hundreds of milli

Whereas with lovely coal and oil we get to ignore the problem. It's just smoke until... Catastrophic climate feedback loops, mass extinction, hundreds of millions of climate migrants escaping uninhabitable parts of earth, coral and shellfish disappear in acidic oceans, entire ecosystems collapse and etc etc. But nuclear had costs. Sure. But we could at least begin to calculate those costs.

dv_dt 6y ago
Why does the answer always reply with coal and oil instead of Renewables and storage?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.
  - dv_dt 6y ago
    Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Because the plants are finished and working. They just shut them down.
      - dv_dt 6y ago
        Nuclear plants have a lifetime of 30ish years. Many are getting shutdown now because the first wave of builds was around 30-50 years ago. The risks of continuing to operate older designs gets higher if they're refurbished.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        Sure, but newer designs were shut down too. I used to live basically next to one. It was in construction for years, very close to completion when Fukushima happened. It was definitely not a rational reaction to cancel that thing.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Becayse germany has been very rapidly ramping up wind and solar, and still they are struggling to replace the reactors. They have made no progress in decarbonising the grid because rhey've been replacing one zero-carbon source with another zero carbon source, instead of removing coal.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    Germany has cut coal use in half since the wind-down of the nuclear fleet began. Please do not repeat misinformation.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      And they would have cut it to zero by now if they left nuclear plants alone.
      - Lutzb 6y ago
        That is factully incorrect. Even if Germany had left nuclear on a level of 1995 and replaced aging plants with new plants of the same capcity the net nuclear output combined with renewables would not be enough to offset coal/gas/oil. See https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        This graph seems to show that coal would have been gone by now. What I getting wrong?
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      That’s misinformation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany You can clearly see how coal is on the rise shortly after 2010. So it is factually true to say they switched back to coal. You would be correct to point out that coal use has gone down since, but not by half. Not even close.
      - jhayward 6y ago
        Let’s use German industry data[1] Fuel 2010 2019 (TWH) Lignite 145.9 113.9 Hard Coal 117.0 57.3 Nuclear 140.6 75.1 Renewables 105.2 244.3 Natural Gas 89.3 91.0 That’s as of 9 months ago. Since Lignite generation dropped 22% in 2019 alone, and Anthracite 30%, we can expect it is even lower today. I make it about 35% by the 2010-2019 numbers, so true, not 50%, but it does in no way support any kind of statement that “coal use has gone up”. Just the opposite. [1] https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=ausdruck_strerz_abgabe_20200217.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileNa...
- etimberg 6y ago
  Because you cannot simply replace conventional rotational generators with inverters. The inertia of the turbomachinery smooths out fluctuations in the grid keeping it stable. Lots of details in [0]. So without lots of hydro or synchronous wind generation, there will always been a need for some kind of conventional generation to keep the grid stable. 0. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/25/grid-inertia-why-it-matters-in-a-renewable-world/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/25/grid-inertia...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jka 6y ago
    I'm no expert, but I did find this[1] recent (May 2020) information posted by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab that indicates that non-inverted power sources (such as solar and wind) may be able to produce synthetic current frequency in order to maintain grid stability. This technology can be included within large-scale storage batteries. In addition, these inertial techniques ('fast frequency response') are digital and as a result could provide lower-latency and higher-accuracy response compared to mechanical approaches. If I understand that correctly, then eventually these approaches could phase out the need for rotational inertia (no pun intended). [1] - https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power-grid-a-guide-without-the-spin.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power... Edit: adding a useful quote from the linked report, below: "In the United States, the Texas grid (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT) is the smallest of three main grids. ERCOT’s relatively small size, combined with its large wind deployment, has required it to compensate for declining inertia by adopting several low-cost solutions, including allowing fast-responding noncritical loads to respond to changes in frequency. This has enabled ERCOT to achieve increasingly high instantaneous wind penetrations—reaching a record of 58% in 2019—while maintaining reliability."
  - p1mrx 6y ago
    If you're building a grid-scale battery storage system, isn't it a relatively straightforward engineering problem to emulate the inertia of a flywheel? I would be much more concerned about batteries' ability to respond on the days/weeks/months scale than the milliseconds scale.
- carry_bit 6y ago
  For the last 40 years, that has been the actual alternative. Can you imagine where we'd be if we had continued pursuing the nuclear future? A largely decarbonized grid, advanced reactor designs deployed, knock-on effects from plentiful power, etc. What would the CO2 levels look like now? But no, instead we're now at a crisis point...
- manfredo 6y ago
  Because we need truly fantastic levels of storage to make renewables even remotely feasible. The US has 8 seconds of battery storage, and ~4 minutes of hydroelectric storage. We need 12 hours of storage to get to 80% renewable generation, and 3 weeks of storage to get to 100% renewable generation [1]. And even if we did go this route, we'd still need to cover 3-5% of the landmass of the Earth with solar panels to achieve this. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/#:~:text=Team-,12%20hours%20of%20energy%20storage%20enough%20for%20U.S.%20to%20run,3%20weeks%20of%20energy%20storage https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora....
  - dv_dt 6y ago
    There have been many studies since 2018 that say areas where they previously thought it would be difficult to get to 80%, that would be perfectly feasible to get to 100% with near term technologies. See Austrailian grid analysis. The key difference is that the prices for both renewables and storage are far ahead of cost reduction estimates in previous forcasts.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      Australia has vast tracts of cheap land and very good solar potential (close to equator, little cloud cover). They also have energy usage patterns that are amenable to solar, with ACs run during the day and little need for heating at night. Most countries do not share these characteristics. And I'd still like to see what they have planned for energy storage. It likely still involves shifting demand (in other words, they can't actually fulfill demand and they have to tell people not to use electricity during certain times of day).
      - dv_dt 6y ago
        That seems to have improved greatly in a years time. The speed with which renewable sources come one line I think is surprising everyone. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-reliability-outlook-for-australias-main-grid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-re...
- AngryData 6y ago
  Because nobody has put forth any workable plan to provide the storage capacity needed to rely on solar or wind.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
Nobody said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?

dv_dt 6y ago

Why does the answer always reply with coal and oil instead of Renewables and storage?

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Because the plants are finished and working. They just shut them down.
    - dv_dt 6y ago
      Nuclear plants have a lifetime of 30ish years. Many are getting shutdown now because the first wave of builds was around 30-50 years ago. The risks of continuing to operate older designs gets higher if they're refurbished.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        Sure, but newer designs were shut down too. I used to live basically next to one. It was in construction for years, very close to completion when Fukushima happened. It was definitely not a rational reaction to cancel that thing.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Becayse germany has been very rapidly ramping up wind and solar, and still they are struggling to replace the reactors. They have made no progress in decarbonising the grid because rhey've been replacing one zero-carbon source with another zero carbon source, instead of removing coal.
- jhayward 6y ago
  Germany has cut coal use in half since the wind-down of the nuclear fleet began. Please do not repeat misinformation.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    And they would have cut it to zero by now if they left nuclear plants alone.
    - Lutzb 6y ago
      That is factully incorrect. Even if Germany had left nuclear on a level of 1995 and replaced aging plants with new plants of the same capcity the net nuclear output combined with renewables would not be enough to offset coal/gas/oil. See https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        This graph seems to show that coal would have been gone by now. What I getting wrong?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    That’s misinformation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany You can clearly see how coal is on the rise shortly after 2010. So it is factually true to say they switched back to coal. You would be correct to point out that coal use has gone down since, but not by half. Not even close.
    - jhayward 6y ago
      Let’s use German industry data[1] Fuel 2010 2019 (TWH) Lignite 145.9 113.9 Hard Coal 117.0 57.3 Nuclear 140.6 75.1 Renewables 105.2 244.3 Natural Gas 89.3 91.0 That’s as of 9 months ago. Since Lignite generation dropped 22% in 2019 alone, and Anthracite 30%, we can expect it is even lower today. I make it about 35% by the 2010-2019 numbers, so true, not 50%, but it does in no way support any kind of statement that “coal use has gone up”. Just the opposite. [1] https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=ausdruck_strerz_abgabe_20200217.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileNa...
etimberg 6y ago
Because you cannot simply replace conventional rotational generators with inverters. The inertia of the turbomachinery smooths out fluctuations in the grid keeping it stable. Lots of details in [0]. So without lots of hydro or synchronous wind generation, there will always been a need for some kind of conventional generation to keep the grid stable. 0. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/25/grid-inertia-why-it-matters-in-a-renewable-world/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/25/grid-inertia...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jka 6y ago
  I'm no expert, but I did find this[1] recent (May 2020) information posted by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab that indicates that non-inverted power sources (such as solar and wind) may be able to produce synthetic current frequency in order to maintain grid stability. This technology can be included within large-scale storage batteries. In addition, these inertial techniques ('fast frequency response') are digital and as a result could provide lower-latency and higher-accuracy response compared to mechanical approaches. If I understand that correctly, then eventually these approaches could phase out the need for rotational inertia (no pun intended). [1] - https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power-grid-a-guide-without-the-spin.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power... Edit: adding a useful quote from the linked report, below: "In the United States, the Texas grid (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT) is the smallest of three main grids. ERCOT’s relatively small size, combined with its large wind deployment, has required it to compensate for declining inertia by adopting several low-cost solutions, including allowing fast-responding noncritical loads to respond to changes in frequency. This has enabled ERCOT to achieve increasingly high instantaneous wind penetrations—reaching a record of 58% in 2019—while maintaining reliability."
- p1mrx 6y ago
  If you're building a grid-scale battery storage system, isn't it a relatively straightforward engineering problem to emulate the inertia of a flywheel? I would be much more concerned about batteries' ability to respond on the days/weeks/months scale than the milliseconds scale.
carry_bit 6y ago
For the last 40 years, that has been the actual alternative. Can you imagine where we'd be if we had continued pursuing the nuclear future? A largely decarbonized grid, advanced reactor designs deployed, knock-on effects from plentiful power, etc. What would the CO2 levels look like now? But no, instead we're now at a crisis point...
manfredo 6y ago
Because we need truly fantastic levels of storage to make renewables even remotely feasible. The US has 8 seconds of battery storage, and ~4 minutes of hydroelectric storage. We need 12 hours of storage to get to 80% renewable generation, and 3 weeks of storage to get to 100% renewable generation [1]. And even if we did go this route, we'd still need to cover 3-5% of the landmass of the Earth with solar panels to achieve this. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/#:~:text=Team-,12%20hours%20of%20energy%20storage%20enough%20for%20U.S.%20to%20run,3%20weeks%20of%20energy%20storage https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora....
- dv_dt 6y ago
  There have been many studies since 2018 that say areas where they previously thought it would be difficult to get to 80%, that would be perfectly feasible to get to 100% with near term technologies. See Austrailian grid analysis. The key difference is that the prices for both renewables and storage are far ahead of cost reduction estimates in previous forcasts.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    Australia has vast tracts of cheap land and very good solar potential (close to equator, little cloud cover). They also have energy usage patterns that are amenable to solar, with ACs run during the day and little need for heating at night. Most countries do not share these characteristics. And I'd still like to see what they have planned for energy storage. It likely still involves shifting demand (in other words, they can't actually fulfill demand and they have to tell people not to use electricity during certain times of day).
    - dv_dt 6y ago
      That seems to have improved greatly in a years time. The speed with which renewable sources come one line I think is surprising everyone. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-reliability-outlook-for-australias-main-grid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-re...
AngryData 6y ago
Because nobody has put forth any workable plan to provide the storage capacity needed to rely on solar or wind.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

Nobody said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?