6 ms·

It takes anyone one minute to check ElectricityMap or an equivalent historical data source to debunk your disinformation about grid balancing and aggregation.

It takes anyone one minute to check ElectricityMap or an equivalent historical data source to debunk your disinformation about grid balancing and aggregation. It's not rare for Europe to have no wind throughout vast land areas for days, affecting most countries at once. Same for solar. Securing a low-carbon base load is critical and nuclear is basically the only option in most places. I'm saddened by the fact we're still arguing about this in 2023, while Germany casually unloads megatons of CO₂eq each month burning coal and gas, and actively slows down the development of cleaner energy through its EU seat.

natmaka 3y ago
> It takes anyone one minute to check ElectricityMap or an equivalent historical data source Those data are about the current fleet of wind turbines production, not sufficient when it comes to determine whether a continental-scale fleet (which doesn't exist yet) could reduce the resources needed to solve this challenge. Adequate studies results are pretty clear: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Similar studies exists for the US, China... Storage (V2G, hydro...) and clean backup (green hydrogen produced during overproduction periods and burnt in turbo-alternators during under-production periods...) will complete this approach.
- himinlomax 3y ago
  Storage will not complete anything in time to be useful. Hydro storage is dependent on geography, and most locations are already tapped. Battery storage is much more expensive than nuclear, and requires astronomical amounts of precious mined resources.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    > Storage will not complete anything in time to be useful You have a case here, however this is even truer for nuclear reactors, especially considering the known uranium reserves (max 2 hundred years for the existing fleet). Hydro: yes, it is not negligible (robust, vasts amounts of energy, low inertia, flexible...), especially as continental grids are quickly progressing. Battery storage is a prerequisite for transport (Electrical Vehicles), this considerably reduces public investments. About mined resources the challenge is to ramp up mining, moreover substitutes and recycling will reduce the pressure. Case: https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/1610948579790655490 https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/161094857979065549...
    - himinlomax 3y ago
      200 years is plenty of time to deploy fast neutron reactors. Hell we had a large non-experimental one in France until it was killed by ecoterrorists.
      - natmaka 3y ago
        There is no industrial fast-neutron reactor, and therefore nothing (yet) to deploy. Superphenix, in France, never reached the industrial stage. Incidents-riddled, its best performance was, after 13 years, a .31 annual load factor.
        himinlomax 3y ago
        It was running properly when it was shut down. Development had it issues, but they were mostly sorted out when the entirely political decision to shut it down was taken.
        natmaka 3y ago
        During it's last year its capacity factor (.31) was way too low for an industrial reactor.

natmaka 3y ago

> It takes anyone one minute to check ElectricityMap or an equivalent historical data source Those data are about the current fleet of wind turbines production, not sufficient when it comes to determine whether a continental-scale fleet (which doesn't exist yet) could reduce the resources needed to solve this challenge. Adequate studies results are pretty clear: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Similar studies exists for the US, China... Storage (V2G, hydro...) and clean backup (green hydrogen produced during overproduction periods and burnt in turbo-alternators during under-production periods...) will complete this approach.

himinlomax 3y ago
Storage will not complete anything in time to be useful. Hydro storage is dependent on geography, and most locations are already tapped. Battery storage is much more expensive than nuclear, and requires astronomical amounts of precious mined resources.
- natmaka 3y ago
  > Storage will not complete anything in time to be useful You have a case here, however this is even truer for nuclear reactors, especially considering the known uranium reserves (max 2 hundred years for the existing fleet). Hydro: yes, it is not negligible (robust, vasts amounts of energy, low inertia, flexible...), especially as continental grids are quickly progressing. Battery storage is a prerequisite for transport (Electrical Vehicles), this considerably reduces public investments. About mined resources the challenge is to ramp up mining, moreover substitutes and recycling will reduce the pressure. Case: https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/1610948579790655490 https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/161094857979065549...
  - himinlomax 3y ago
    200 years is plenty of time to deploy fast neutron reactors. Hell we had a large non-experimental one in France until it was killed by ecoterrorists.
    - natmaka 3y ago
      There is no industrial fast-neutron reactor, and therefore nothing (yet) to deploy. Superphenix, in France, never reached the industrial stage. Incidents-riddled, its best performance was, after 13 years, a .31 annual load factor.
      - himinlomax 3y ago
        It was running properly when it was shut down. Development had it issues, but they were mostly sorted out when the entirely political decision to shut it down was taken.
        natmaka 3y ago
        During it's last year its capacity factor (.31) was way too low for an industrial reactor.