5 ms·

>Compare with renewables: 790GW already running (26% of the gridpower), Something to remember here is that the vast majority of that 26% is hydroelectric (mayb

• natmaka 4y ago
  > Wind and solar provide only a few percent Indeed, however this is all about heavy industry (producing gridpower), and about recent trends. Hydroelectricity is a way older industry than solar and wind. Photovoltaïcs: from 0MW (2000) to 306560MW (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China#Solar_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China#Solar_pho... Wind: from 2GWh produced in 2005 to 655600GWh in 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China#Installed_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China#Installed_... > run into real problems with the intermittent nature of wind and solar. Denmark already produces 55% of its electricity thanks to wind and targets 84% by 2035 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark In China the effect of spreading-out production units is well-known since at least 2009: "Liu et al. investigated wind energy complementarity across China, demonstrating that whereas a combination of wind and solar resources over a given area reduces the occurrence of zero-power hours, wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production, if a large enough area is considered." Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032109002068 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640... > the goal is really to decarbonize the grid It is a goal, not the (single) goal. There are others criteria: risk, waste, cost, dependency towards uranium, decommission-related uncertainties, ability to export know-how with profit...
  • opo 4y ago
    >...wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year. Unclear how much variability there is over time or will be in the future with climate change. The estimate is that over a wide enough area the occurrence of zero power hours is greatly reduced but it doesn't claim that wind is sufficient to provide baseline power production. We will see I guess. >...Denmark already produces 55% of its electricity thanks to wind and targets 84% by 2035 The capacity factor for wind power is still low in Denmark. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity. This works for Denmark, but not every country will be so lucky to have neighbors with nuclear and hydro capability. For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only on solar and wind would require about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is literally 183 times their current capacity. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5950.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5... If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago. In order for everyone to only use intermittent energy sources though, it will be necessary. >> the goal is really to decarbonize the grid >It is a goal, not the (single) goal. It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using fossil fuels to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. In that case - great, problem solved! But... what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?
    • natmaka 4y ago
      > If I recall, the paper was based on wind data for 1 year They selected 2011 as representative and detailed it, however the underlying numerical series cover decades (see the 'Ninja' project https://www.renewables.ninja/ https://www.renewables.ninja/ ) > how much variability ((...) will be in the future with climate change Indeed, there is a non-negligible challenge here. It is also true for nuclear, for example when it comes to cool a reactor down: water ill be more and more scarce, heating it isn't neutral, installing a reactor on seashore exposes it to sea level rise... > capacity factor Is way less a criteria for production units not consuming any fuel (wind, solar...) not waste. >. They are able to rely so much on wind because they still burn fossil fuels and fortunately the neighboring countries don't heavily rely on intermittent energy sources and can buffer Denmark's under and over supply of electricity. Yes, and each and every clean energy source type now needs such a backup. No industrialized nation (bar maybe very low-population density coupled with huge natural resources, mainly hydro) can produce all its electricity without either not negligible curtailment or burning fossil fuel in 'backup' powerplants. Even hugely-nuclearized France could never, cannot (and don't even plan to) produce all its electricity thanks to nuclear: around 9% of their electricity is produced by backup 'thermal' plants: gas (methane), oil, coal, see https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... ), either due to load-following or peak consumption. > For Germany one estimate is that for it to rely only on solar and wind AFAI no nation targets such an ordeal, they plan to reduce the need for backup units to an acceptable (and always lower) level thanks to production units geographic spread-out, mix (solar, wind...), storage (including V2G) and low-impact curtailment. > If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago No, mainly because there was no perceived need (burning fossils was practical and cheap), and also as some rather recent advances (network management enabling better integration of intermittent sources, low-loss long-haul powerlines ((U)HVDC...) facilitate such projects. Applying nuclear reactors to real-world problems (in submarines, aircraft carriers and ice breakers) date back the 1950's, and the very same reactor architecture (PWR) wasn't adopted as the main type of electricity-production unit before the 1970's. > (renewables) ((...)) what if that doesn't pan out? It better does, as our current (worldwide) ability to build nuclear reactors is very weak, and weakening, and as there isn't any third approach in sight. > If you were forced to choose, would you prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power? For the time being, and quite probably for (at best) the next 20 years, there is no such option. Nuclear produces about 2.2% of world's total final consumed energy, with approx running 450 reactors. In order for it to produce about 22% we need to build approx 4500 reactors. This isn't even an option. France is one of the leaders and doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040...