4 ms·

At a certain point, base load has to be met during low wind nights. Renewable energy is cheap and efficient. However it doesn't meet base load requirements with

by foxyv 5y ago

At a certain point, base load has to be met during low wind nights. Renewable energy is cheap and efficient. However it doesn't meet base load requirements without substantial storage. Nuclear does meet those requirements. Currently we are using natural gas. Even if you had 10x the necessary capacity of solar, you would still need some sort of night time storage which currently doesn't exist. In addition you need something to offset power losses and increased demand in higher latitudes during the winter.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. We need to ditch the gas and coal. I'm happy to keep the nuclear as long as someone can explain how it actually helps achieve a carbon free grid. But apparently no one can.
- foxyv 5y ago
  There are two sides to explaining something. A providing of information and comprehension. If someone is unwilling or unable to comprehend something then no one can explain to them how something works. In that way, no, I cannot explain this to you.
- forgotpassword1 5y ago
  > Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. Most people will always use electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Offices are still open, air conditioner / heater are still running, and factories are still operating. This is the "baseload" they are talking about, and no it is not fictional. Wind and solar fluctuates between 0 and MAX_OUTPUT. Power usage also fluctuates, but between BASELOAD and MAX_CONSUMPTION. These two are not in sync, and even if they are, you still need other power sources to handle the BASELOAD part of it. Nuclear is able to generate a stable output power. If we have enough nuclear power plants to generate BASELOAD amount of power, we only need renewables to handle the remaining MAX_CONSUMPTION-BASELOAD, and we will need much less battery to handle the fluctuation.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    See my other comment about graphing the overlap between "baseload" and solar. What are you pairing this nuclear baseload with? Gas? At least make an effort. What about, we build enough nuclear to cover more than the yearly total energy demand, and run them all the time. Then when demand is low, like at night we use the energy to generate green hydrogen (apparently also called pink hydrogen if you use nuclear specifically). We then use that hydrogen in converted gas turbines to meet peak needs above baseline and we sell the rest to farmers to make fertilizer and manufacturers as a feedstock and fuel. How possible is this? Very possible. Now, replace the nukes with a similar output of solar and wind. And locate some of it in the sunniest regions of the world and ship the hydrogen to customer by boat or pipeline. Is it much cheaper. Yes it is. So why do we need nuclear?

by foxyv 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. We need to ditch the gas and coal. I'm happy to keep the nuclear as long as someone can explain how it actually helps achieve a carbon free grid. But apparently no one can.

foxyv 5y ago
There are two sides to explaining something. A providing of information and comprehension. If someone is unwilling or unable to comprehend something then no one can explain to them how something works. In that way, no, I cannot explain this to you.
forgotpassword1 5y ago
> Baseload isnt a real thing. Its just a conceptual framework for combining nuclear and coal with gas peaking plants. Most people will always use electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Offices are still open, air conditioner / heater are still running, and factories are still operating. This is the "baseload" they are talking about, and no it is not fictional. Wind and solar fluctuates between 0 and MAX_OUTPUT. Power usage also fluctuates, but between BASELOAD and MAX_CONSUMPTION. These two are not in sync, and even if they are, you still need other power sources to handle the BASELOAD part of it. Nuclear is able to generate a stable output power. If we have enough nuclear power plants to generate BASELOAD amount of power, we only need renewables to handle the remaining MAX_CONSUMPTION-BASELOAD, and we will need much less battery to handle the fluctuation.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  See my other comment about graphing the overlap between "baseload" and solar. What are you pairing this nuclear baseload with? Gas? At least make an effort. What about, we build enough nuclear to cover more than the yearly total energy demand, and run them all the time. Then when demand is low, like at night we use the energy to generate green hydrogen (apparently also called pink hydrogen if you use nuclear specifically). We then use that hydrogen in converted gas turbines to meet peak needs above baseline and we sell the rest to farmers to make fertilizer and manufacturers as a feedstock and fuel. How possible is this? Very possible. Now, replace the nukes with a similar output of solar and wind. And locate some of it in the sunniest regions of the world and ship the hydrogen to customer by boat or pipeline. Is it much cheaper. Yes it is. So why do we need nuclear?