4 ms·
>Of course and that needs to be factored into renewable supplies which massively increases their cost. It is and it does but being 5x cheaper means even a mass
by pydry 4y ago
>Of course and that needs to be factored into renewable supplies which massively increases their cost.
It is and it does but being 5x cheaper means even a massive increase in cost still doesnt put it in the same league as nuclear power.
- realusername 4y agoIt has to be way more than 5 times cheaper to compensate the drop to single digits capacity percentages like last winter.
- timellis-smith 4y agoThat doesn't matter because it's not like you can double renewables to increase redundancy (no wind is no wind no matter how many turbines you have)- you need another more expensive energy source as well.
- illiarian 4y agoTo cover the drop in generation for the night of April 15, even 400% wind capacity would not be enough. It was a rather regular, quiet, night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that it was a quiet night across much of Europe.
- quonn 4y agoAs if there would be just one way to compensate this. - More renewables can be added - Storage can compensate for this - Power can be distributed across large areas - The amount needed at night is not fixed. It only appears fixed because we don‘t care so much. It can be reduced significantly by using devices and processes in a smarter way depending on the availability of power.