4 ms·

Wait, I'm confused. In countries with heavy renewables investment in Europe, there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it, and there are

Wait, I'm confused. In countries with heavy renewables investment in Europe, there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it, and there are days when the wind doesn't blow quite as much so they have to import energy instead. That is a fact, right? Not some right wing propaganda. So if we know this is a fact, how can we address the fact that renewables dip below what we need from time to time? How do you handle the baseload? I don't think that's "cherrypicking" - more like a fundamental issue that as far as I can see has only couple ways of being addressed - either have plants that run on fossil fuels, or.....nuclear power. Out of the two, nuclear wins easily when it comes to environmental cost, no? Like....is literally anything I said in any way controversial?

olddustytrail 4y ago
At least one thing you said is a bit bizarre: > there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it "Oh no! Our power generation is making so much energy that we have to sell even more of it and make even more money! What a disaster!" You do get that power companies want to make money, right?
- gambiting 4y ago
  And you do get that you completely failed to address anything that I asked, instead launching into a seque about something you've made up entirely in your head since I never said energy surplus is a bad thing? And no, I really don't want you to continue debating this point - I'd like you to answer my original question thank you.
  - olddustytrail 4y ago
    Ok, nuclear is not dispatchable and therefore sucks at coping with spikes in generation or demand. You need either gas turbine (responds in minutes), hydro (seconds) or battery (milliseconds). "Base load" is not a good thing, it's a "this is useless for anything else, so all we can use it for is base load" thing. Does that answer your question?
    - gambiting 4y ago
      It does. I'm not sure I understand this though: ""Base load" is not a good thing, it's a "this is useless for anything else, so all we can use it for is base load" thing." Surely you want a base load capacity to always exist, no matter what, no? Covering for spikes is one thing, but your grid has to have an always-on level of generation that is always there, for various technical reasons. >> hydro (seconds) Genuine curiosity - what kind of hydro reacts in seconds? I literally used to live next to a hydro dam and the numbers they used to give visitors were around 10-15 minutes minimum to spool up the turbines and start delivering to the grid. We also had a hydro storage facility on top of a mountain nearby, similar thing - it takes time to open the sluices, it takes time for water to hit the turbines, it takes time for the turbines to spool up and get to the operational parameters before they can start sending power to the grid. And finally I'm still not sure why you'd say that people who are cheering for nuclear power are only doing so to prelong the fossil fuel dominance?
      - olddustytrail 4y ago
        Base load: no, you can get away with it because there's always some demand but if it ever drops below your base load level you suddenly need to find a way to dump energy off. A grid of perfectly dispatchable, if such a thing were possible, would be the ideal. Hydro: "Cruachan power station can respond within 26 seconds to sudden demands for electricity." https://www.secret-scotland.com/place/cruachan-power-station https://www.secret-scotland.com/place/cruachan-power-station I live in Scotland. The nuclear fans are prolonging fossil fuels through their false claims that renewables can't achieve what they are already achieving. Scotland used to get 85% of its electricity from fossil fuels. That figure is 10% today. Nuclear fans keep pushing for a hugely expensive solution that will take at least a decade to start producing. It's a delaying tactic. I don't mean that anyone who is pushing for nuclear is a shill, I just think they've fallen for the narrative.

olddustytrail 4y ago

At least one thing you said is a bit bizarre: > there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it "Oh no! Our power generation is making so much energy that we have to sell even more of it and make even more money! What a disaster!" You do get that power companies want to make money, right?

gambiting 4y ago
And you do get that you completely failed to address anything that I asked, instead launching into a seque about something you've made up entirely in your head since I never said energy surplus is a bad thing? And no, I really don't want you to continue debating this point - I'd like you to answer my original question thank you.
- olddustytrail 4y ago
  Ok, nuclear is not dispatchable and therefore sucks at coping with spikes in generation or demand. You need either gas turbine (responds in minutes), hydro (seconds) or battery (milliseconds). "Base load" is not a good thing, it's a "this is useless for anything else, so all we can use it for is base load" thing. Does that answer your question?
  - gambiting 4y ago
    It does. I'm not sure I understand this though: ""Base load" is not a good thing, it's a "this is useless for anything else, so all we can use it for is base load" thing." Surely you want a base load capacity to always exist, no matter what, no? Covering for spikes is one thing, but your grid has to have an always-on level of generation that is always there, for various technical reasons. >> hydro (seconds) Genuine curiosity - what kind of hydro reacts in seconds? I literally used to live next to a hydro dam and the numbers they used to give visitors were around 10-15 minutes minimum to spool up the turbines and start delivering to the grid. We also had a hydro storage facility on top of a mountain nearby, similar thing - it takes time to open the sluices, it takes time for water to hit the turbines, it takes time for the turbines to spool up and get to the operational parameters before they can start sending power to the grid. And finally I'm still not sure why you'd say that people who are cheering for nuclear power are only doing so to prelong the fossil fuel dominance?
    - olddustytrail 4y ago
      Base load: no, you can get away with it because there's always some demand but if it ever drops below your base load level you suddenly need to find a way to dump energy off. A grid of perfectly dispatchable, if such a thing were possible, would be the ideal. Hydro: "Cruachan power station can respond within 26 seconds to sudden demands for electricity." https://www.secret-scotland.com/place/cruachan-power-station https://www.secret-scotland.com/place/cruachan-power-station I live in Scotland. The nuclear fans are prolonging fossil fuels through their false claims that renewables can't achieve what they are already achieving. Scotland used to get 85% of its electricity from fossil fuels. That figure is 10% today. Nuclear fans keep pushing for a hugely expensive solution that will take at least a decade to start producing. It's a delaying tactic. I don't mean that anyone who is pushing for nuclear is a shill, I just think they've fallen for the narrative.