3 ms·

50% of german electric energy production is from high availability sources (nuclear+fossil fuels) and Germany's network is connected to the continental network,

by effie 6y ago

50% of german electric energy production is from high availability sources (nuclear+fossil fuels) and Germany's network is connected to the continental network, so of course the network is stable. It will be hard to get these sources down and maintain that stability. Maybe it can be done with energy storage, but so far it is not built.

legulere 6y ago
Those fears have been discussed endlessly. Just look at the graph I posted to see the change in the last years that is still continuing. Availability has nothing to do with what you are talking about (it’s much higher for photovoltaics anyway). Out of the 49.5% non-renewables only gas which makes up 12.5 percent of electricity can really be used to follow demand. Coal and nuclear are too slow for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020/nettostromerzeugung-in-deutschland-2021-erneuerbare-energien-erstmals-ueber-50-prozent.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020...
- effie 6y ago
  By availability I meant fraction of time that it is available for power generation. This is closer to technical term "capacity factor", which is higher for nuclear energy than for PV energy, so my point stands. Modern nuclear plants can do load following and they do so in France and in Germany. So why is "nuclear too slow"?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Total pollution is the only factor that matters. Intermittency is irrelevant for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and fighting climate change. Intermittency is mostly relevant for 100% zero carbon energy which is a goal that is incredibly far away. At least another 10 years before we even think about it and then another 10 years to do it.

by effie 6y ago

legulere 6y ago

Those fears have been discussed endlessly. Just look at the graph I posted to see the change in the last years that is still continuing. Availability has nothing to do with what you are talking about (it’s much higher for photovoltaics anyway). Out of the 49.5% non-renewables only gas which makes up 12.5 percent of electricity can really be used to follow demand. Coal and nuclear are too slow for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020/nettostromerzeugung-in-deutschland-2021-erneuerbare-energien-erstmals-ueber-50-prozent.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020...

effie 6y ago
By availability I meant fraction of time that it is available for power generation. This is closer to technical term "capacity factor", which is higher for nuclear energy than for PV energy, so my point stands. Modern nuclear plants can do load following and they do so in France and in Germany. So why is "nuclear too slow"?
- imtringued 6y ago
  Total pollution is the only factor that matters. Intermittency is irrelevant for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and fighting climate change. Intermittency is mostly relevant for 100% zero carbon energy which is a goal that is incredibly far away. At least another 10 years before we even think about it and then another 10 years to do it.