7 ms·

Nuclear isn't running 24/7. In theory maybe, but that hasn't worked out in practice. Quite severely not, for some countries.

realusername 4y ago
Even on the worst year of nuclear for France, the renewables still have a worse output than that. This month it's been ~10% of the installed capacity for wind turbines and 3% of the installed capacity for solar. I don't know why it's not on the news either, there's seems to be a massive bias in reporting where nuclear is expected to have a 100% uptime but renewables nobody cares, whatever it produces is ok even single digits is fine.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  I can tell you why: For nuclear you calculate with a near 100% uptime, for renewables there was always variability calculated. You people talk like nobody knew the sun don't shine all day or that wind isn't entirely predictable. Yeah, people know, including the engineers who plan and build such projects...
  - realusername 4y ago
    I'm going to say some hard truth here that nobody really plans for it (as seen as what's happening in Europe this month) and the companies really don't care as long as the renewables are sold, it's not even counted in the price per kwh either.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      Bullshit, it's in all the plans. You are completely misconstrueing European energy policy. Of course renewables don't replace all the fossil fuels right now. This may happen eventually with storage technology, but nobody is planning with that. Of course the slack is taken up by burning fossil fuel which reduces the overall replacement factor by a certain amount. That was the plan all along, not some evil bait-and-switch. Nobody ever calculated or promised those energy sources producing all the time. You are either completely ignorant or purposefully lying.
      - realusername 4y ago
        You're wrong here and it's even written on paper, there's even a date being set, 2038 for phasing out coal. So yes people do plan for phasing out fossil fuels thanks to renewables, despite having no technology which exist which can achieve that.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        Phasing out coal does not mean phasing out all fossil fuels. Isn't that obvious to you or are you intentionally lying and trying to mislead? 2038 is quite a few years in the future. Your blanket statement of "there is no technology which can achieve that" is just not plausible. Of course, when you conflate coal with fossil fuels, if you confuse short-term and long-term plans however you please, you can find a lot of inconsistencies to attack.
        realusername 4y ago
        There's something called climate change, I already ruled out all the other unusable fossil fuel options yes. > 2038 is quite a few years in the future. Your blanket statement of "there is no technology which can achieve that" is just not plausible. We're betting on technology which doesn't exist (and might never exist for all that we know), what could go wrong here?

realusername 4y ago

Even on the worst year of nuclear for France, the renewables still have a worse output than that. This month it's been ~10% of the installed capacity for wind turbines and 3% of the installed capacity for solar. I don't know why it's not on the news either, there's seems to be a massive bias in reporting where nuclear is expected to have a 100% uptime but renewables nobody cares, whatever it produces is ok even single digits is fine.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
I can tell you why: For nuclear you calculate with a near 100% uptime, for renewables there was always variability calculated. You people talk like nobody knew the sun don't shine all day or that wind isn't entirely predictable. Yeah, people know, including the engineers who plan and build such projects...
- realusername 4y ago
  I'm going to say some hard truth here that nobody really plans for it (as seen as what's happening in Europe this month) and the companies really don't care as long as the renewables are sold, it's not even counted in the price per kwh either.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Bullshit, it's in all the plans. You are completely misconstrueing European energy policy. Of course renewables don't replace all the fossil fuels right now. This may happen eventually with storage technology, but nobody is planning with that. Of course the slack is taken up by burning fossil fuel which reduces the overall replacement factor by a certain amount. That was the plan all along, not some evil bait-and-switch. Nobody ever calculated or promised those energy sources producing all the time. You are either completely ignorant or purposefully lying.
    - realusername 4y ago
      You're wrong here and it's even written on paper, there's even a date being set, 2038 for phasing out coal. So yes people do plan for phasing out fossil fuels thanks to renewables, despite having no technology which exist which can achieve that.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        Phasing out coal does not mean phasing out all fossil fuels. Isn't that obvious to you or are you intentionally lying and trying to mislead? 2038 is quite a few years in the future. Your blanket statement of "there is no technology which can achieve that" is just not plausible. Of course, when you conflate coal with fossil fuels, if you confuse short-term and long-term plans however you please, you can find a lot of inconsistencies to attack.
        realusername 4y ago
        There's something called climate change, I already ruled out all the other unusable fossil fuel options yes. > 2038 is quite a few years in the future. Your blanket statement of "there is no technology which can achieve that" is just not plausible. We're betting on technology which doesn't exist (and might never exist for all that we know), what could go wrong here?