6 ms·

Renewables are cheap when they produce. The problem is when they don't produce. Wind cannot be predicted, and the sun disappears for several hours during the da

by Herz 4y ago

Renewables are cheap when they produce. The problem is when they don't produce. Wind cannot be predicted, and the sun disappears for several hours during the day. How much does some renewable energy cost me at night when there is no wind, +infinity? Just look at the average capacity factor of renewables, on average it is as if 60-70% of the time they produce nothing during the course of a year. In contrast, a nuclear plant can easily reach 90+% capacity factor, which makes it very reliable as a power source. I am not saying that renewables suck, but to say that they cost little and are the solution to all problems is simply false. Some countries may go 100% renewable, but to claim that everyone must adopt renewables is ideological propaganda. P.S. It is useless to talk about batteries and storage systems, which do not exist on a large scale, except through dams, whose existence is highly dependent on the geology of the country. (By the way, these would be projects that would greatly increase the price of renewable energy, but they are always omitted for idology)

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Wind cannot be predicted" I can predict you, that the wind on the sea is way stronger and stable, than on land, so your base assumption might be wrong. (Offshore windparks are still not the solution of course.)
- Herz 4y ago
  I generalized. Over a broad time period (like a year), you can predict the wind production of a wind farm, but on a daily basis you cannot consider wind a reliable source of energy. You can't make predictions today about the next day, and that makes wind a not very reliable source of energy if you have to run a country on it.... The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium, or energy mix with nuclear (imho, the most logical rational and economical way).
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium" You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.
    - Herz 4y ago
      It is not all perfect, salt (molten) batteries have an operating range of about 300 degrees. In addition to having very long preparation times after discharge. If you don't use them in daily use they tend to discharge over time. And they have very low energy densities. We can wait for some scientific advances, but it is whishful thinking to hope that in a few decades they will invent the ultimate solution. Hydroelectric plants are the only large-scale storage, but they are highly dependent on the geology of the country. They are not a solution to seasonal storage. For me it is useless to go on all these big trips, the solution is very simple: mix of nuclear for base load, and renewable for peak.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Hydroelectric plants are not, in fact, "the only large-scale storage". Numerous practical storage methods are being fielded, many suitable at any scale. Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very, very common. I can see them in every direction, here. Maybe you can, too. A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future. Renewables + some storage are good for baseline. NG is good to fill in lulls longer than storage covers. Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it.
        Herz 4y ago
        Yeah, if you want to destroy whole landscapes and ecosystems to do pumped hydro, you can. But then it also becomes a little embarrassing to call yourself an environmentalist. Simply put, you'd rather destroy dozens if not hundreds of square miles per industrialized country instead of a few nuclear power plants? And you also propose to continue to pollute with NG. Wow, do you even get paid to state such things? Lol "Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it." Data? No because in one comment you talked about renewables, destroying km2 of land, building storage, and keeping NG (which a few billion per gas plant you pay them). I have the data (which are public on the various reports of international agency), but at this point I am curious to see how the fantasy story will turn out. At this point I wonder why you have such beliefs? Clearly you are not an environmentalist because you want to destroy whole landscapes, you don't care about polluting less because you proposed NG as a backup, what are you fighting for? That sounds like anti-scientific propaganda to me.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    > The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage No one will deploy seasonal storage, so the point is moot. NG backup works today, and will continue working into the indefinite future. Chemical batteries are the most expensive of many storage alternatives, with advantages for very short-term use. Lithium is a poor choice for utility requirements, so its supply is irrelevant. There is no place for nukes, which cost radically more than all other alternatives, most especially for only intermittent use.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
This is the same set of tired lies. 90% EAF for nuclear is a complete fiction, even in the US it only looks that way because the nameplate value isn't increased when expensive upgrades are made so you're averaging 120% output for 75% of the year with 30% or 0% in the rest. Before Fukushima, Japan's program was around 65%. Cost for cost, a mixed renewable system will produce at least as much as a nuclear plant for at least as large a portion of the year. Nuclear can be a good choice and probably is in this instance, but the only ideology here is the same set of slimy lies that the fake pro-nuclear crowd always uses to attack renewables.

by Herz 4y ago

hutzlibu 4y ago

"Wind cannot be predicted" I can predict you, that the wind on the sea is way stronger and stable, than on land, so your base assumption might be wrong. (Offshore windparks are still not the solution of course.)

Herz 4y ago
I generalized. Over a broad time period (like a year), you can predict the wind production of a wind farm, but on a daily basis you cannot consider wind a reliable source of energy. You can't make predictions today about the next day, and that makes wind a not very reliable source of energy if you have to run a country on it.... The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium, or energy mix with nuclear (imho, the most logical rational and economical way).
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium" You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.
  - Herz 4y ago
    It is not all perfect, salt (molten) batteries have an operating range of about 300 degrees. In addition to having very long preparation times after discharge. If you don't use them in daily use they tend to discharge over time. And they have very low energy densities. We can wait for some scientific advances, but it is whishful thinking to hope that in a few decades they will invent the ultimate solution. Hydroelectric plants are the only large-scale storage, but they are highly dependent on the geology of the country. They are not a solution to seasonal storage. For me it is useless to go on all these big trips, the solution is very simple: mix of nuclear for base load, and renewable for peak.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Hydroelectric plants are not, in fact, "the only large-scale storage". Numerous practical storage methods are being fielded, many suitable at any scale. Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very, very common. I can see them in every direction, here. Maybe you can, too. A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future. Renewables + some storage are good for baseline. NG is good to fill in lulls longer than storage covers. Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it.
      - Herz 4y ago
        Yeah, if you want to destroy whole landscapes and ecosystems to do pumped hydro, you can. But then it also becomes a little embarrassing to call yourself an environmentalist. Simply put, you'd rather destroy dozens if not hundreds of square miles per industrialized country instead of a few nuclear power plants? And you also propose to continue to pollute with NG. Wow, do you even get paid to state such things? Lol "Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it." Data? No because in one comment you talked about renewables, destroying km2 of land, building storage, and keeping NG (which a few billion per gas plant you pay them). I have the data (which are public on the various reports of international agency), but at this point I am curious to see how the fantasy story will turn out. At this point I wonder why you have such beliefs? Clearly you are not an environmentalist because you want to destroy whole landscapes, you don't care about polluting less because you proposed NG as a backup, what are you fighting for? That sounds like anti-scientific propaganda to me.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  > The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage No one will deploy seasonal storage, so the point is moot. NG backup works today, and will continue working into the indefinite future. Chemical batteries are the most expensive of many storage alternatives, with advantages for very short-term use. Lithium is a poor choice for utility requirements, so its supply is irrelevant. There is no place for nukes, which cost radically more than all other alternatives, most especially for only intermittent use.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

This is the same set of tired lies. 90% EAF for nuclear is a complete fiction, even in the US it only looks that way because the nameplate value isn't increased when expensive upgrades are made so you're averaging 120% output for 75% of the year with 30% or 0% in the rest. Before Fukushima, Japan's program was around 65%. Cost for cost, a mixed renewable system will produce at least as much as a nuclear plant for at least as large a portion of the year. Nuclear can be a good choice and probably is in this instance, but the only ideology here is the same set of slimy lies that the fake pro-nuclear crowd always uses to attack renewables.