3 ms·
Germany has spent hundreds of billons developing solar and wind, and yet they are deindustrializing now with just a moderate decrease in natural gas supply. Peo
by rsj_hn 4y ago
Germany has spent hundreds of billons developing solar and wind, and yet they are deindustrializing now with just a moderate decrease in natural gas supply. People are going into forests, chopping down trees in European countries when faced with a reduction in fossil fuel supply. In that case, what hope is there for a developing country?
Wind and Solar are not -- and have never been -- a replacement for reliable energy sources, because the energy storage problem has not been solved for them. This is not what solar advocates want to hear, but it's the truth.
Nuclear, on the other hand, is a reliable source of energy. Hydro and geothermal are also reliable, but their supply is limited.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoIntermittency is not unreliability. Wind and solar are intermittent, but quite predictable -- especially in aggregate. A NPP like Civaux is unreliable. Unreliability is much worse and correlated unreliability is worst because you might have half of your fleet offline at the beginning of winter during an energy crisis with no notice. It takes 100t of new Uranium at ~3.5% to bring an AP1000 online. Reprocessing reduces this by up to 15% It takes 7.4kg of natural Uranium to produce 1kg of 3.5% enriched Uranium. World production of Natural Uranium is 45,000t. Doubling this would allow bringing 6GW of new NPP on line per year. Increasing it tenfold would almost match the net power additions of renewables this year, but after one year of additions your new fleet would have under a decade worth of fuel. Storage is only 'not solved' insofar as renewables + storage cost almost as much as nuclear for the same level of availability.