4 ms·
Sorry - yes, should be 5,800MW. They produced 51Twh/365/24 = 5.8GW in avg delivery. Nuclear generated it's power around the clock. I'm not sure solar is cover
by tempnow987 5y ago
Sorry - yes, should be 5,800MW.
They produced 51Twh/365/24 = 5.8GW in avg delivery.
Nuclear generated it's power around the clock. I'm not sure solar is covering the evening peaks and the prices for electricity make going to things like heat pumps and electric dryers much more expensive than you'd expect in germany so the economic case for electrification in germany has started to run way way behind the case in other places that have kept nuclear in the mix.
- jacquesm 5y agoThe idea that baseload can only be provided with nuclear or with fossil fuels has long been debunked.
- macspoofing 5y ago*fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, geothermal - though the latter two need particular geography. What else is there?
- jacquesm 5y agoOverprovisioning and HVDC. Those two together can make a real dent into required installed baseline power.
- macspoofing 5y agoAnd yet they don't. This is the frustrating part of the discussion, because proponents will just name-drop every hypothetical technology. The actual reality is that nobody is actually doing it (using batteries as baseload), even though there is a political desperation to want to implement it. There is a reason why every natural gas company either supports and pushes wind/solar projects. Every large scale wind/solar deployment leads to a corresponding increase in natural gas investment. That should be a clue that there are some major (and insurmountable) issues with deploying batteries at grid-scale. It's sad this is a game that is being played on the public, where the public is made to believe wind/solar investment leads to less reliance on fossil fuels.