3 ms·

Applies to nuclear, too. Check your own bias.

by lispm 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago
Except nuclear isn't dumb. Nuclear is a reliable source. >90% capacity factor. Downtime almost always planned and scheduled. Wind/Solar are not reliable. They are intermittent and not schedulable. The provide power when the weather permits. For example right now we have a storm in Germany, but it is holiday seasons, with electricity demand low. All that wind energy and nowhere to go. In order to make intermittent sources viable, you need backup. So in addition to having to vastly overprovision the EEs themselves (due to the 15% capacity factor), you need to additionally provision non-EE backup power generation. Which then sits around idly until needed. How many times are we supposed to overprovision to make intermittent source viable?!? It's a pretty non-sensical plan, but at least it's a plan. Except for one minor detail: the backup power generators are fossil fuel based. Preferably gas. So in addition to the idiocy of having to double up your energy generating infrastructure (intermittent primary, schedulable backup), that backup is not CO2 free. Oh, and there's a little bit of a geopolitical problem as well. Wouldn't it be better if the backup were not fossil fuel based? Well, I'm glad you asked: yes it absolutely would! Except we don't have many of those, except nuclear. Except nuclear doesn't really make sense as a "backup". Because it already produces carbon free electricity, and like PV/Wind, its operating costs are low, it just makes sense to keep it on all the time. And since it is actually reliable, not intermittent like PV/Wind, you actually can keep it on all the time. And then you just don't need the "primary", because the "backup" is superior in all respects. Well apart from ideology.
- lispm 3y ago
  > Downtime almost always planned and scheduled Not in 2022 in France. Not 2011 in Japan. > All that wind energy and nowhere to go. Currently it drives much of the electricity in Northern Europe. > Wind/Solar are not reliable. The arguments you list are all the old arguments. Years ago it was unthinkable that we (Germany) would have >50% electricity renewable (the typical arguments from 25 years ago: not reliable, grid unstable, blackouts, Dunkelflaute, ...) in total over a full year. Now we are there. It's still expanding, even without nuclear. Since April 2023 all reactors are closed. Gone. And no, nuclear is not a good backup solution in an energy landscape, which will be driven mostly by renewable energy. That's the future, world-wide. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/zjpqexkqypx/ShareofGlobalElecMix.png https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/zjpqexkqypx/Shareof... The read curve is the share of nuclear power for electricity production. Linear going down. > Well apart from ideology How about your ideology? All the people not of your opinion are following an ideology, but you don't? Get off your high horse, please.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    >> Downtime almost always planned and scheduled > Not in 2022 in France. Not 2011 in Japan. Nice try, but no cigar. Note the word "almost". Even two times are perfectly consistent with almost always. In fact there were a lot more unplanned downtimes than that. Because unplanned downtimes do happen. They're just not a big deal, because overall, the capacity factor of nuclear is >90%. You really have to stop cherry picking individual data items that suit your ideology and start looking at the overall data. Nuclear: >90% capacity factor. EE: <15% capacity factor. So it is about as abnormal for EEs to be available as it is for nuclear plants to be unavailable. That's the actual facts. And of course, 2022 in France was scheduled downtime. It then took a little longer than scheduled, because they found something during the inspection. As I wrote elsewhere, you can't plan for what you find during an inspection. Because if you could, there'd be no point in doing the inspection in the first place. It's why you do inspections, to find out if there's something you are not expecting. > [Wind and solar not reliable] ...old arguments. The fact that they are old does not make them any less true. I don't care what other people said was impossible. This crap only "works" with massive fossil backup, which isn't really an option. > no, nuclear is not a good backup solution Totally agreed. Because once you have nuclear as a "backup" you simply don't need the unreliable "primary", as the "backup" is already CO2 free and also cheap and reliable. And since fossil is not a viable alternative backup either, there is no viable backup. So the whole Energiewende is built on a lie. Which is why so many countries are now turning around in order not to repeat Germany's mistake. Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germanys-energy-crisis-dispels-several-myths/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany... "Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy." Amid an energy crisis, Germany turns to the world's dirtiest fossil fuel https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ... GERMANY’S ENERGIEWENDE A disaster in the making https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Vahrenholt-20171.pdf https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Vahrenholt-2... Germany's Energy Catastrophe https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe/ https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe... And no, your curves are not meaningful. In fact, as I and others have pointed out before, multiple times, they are utterly meaningless. That countries were getting out of nuclear 2 years ago is well known und undisputed. Even FRANCE was getting out of nuclear 2 years ago, betting on renewables. They no longer are. Between then and now something happed. Something you refuse to acknowledge or even recognize, because it doesn't fit your ideology, and you don't care to look at actual data. > How about your ideology? What ideology? I was against nuclear and in favor of the Energiewende. Until I started look at the actual data. In detail. Something you absolutely, categorically refuse to do. > All the people not of your opinion are following an ideology, Nope, people who ignore the data are following an ideology. To quote the Forbes article again: "Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy." Populist but irrational energy policy. Ideologically driven. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Applies to nuclear, too. Check your own bias.

by lispm 3y ago

Applies to nuclear, too. Check your own bias.

Except nuclear isn't dumb. Nuclear is a reliable source. >90% capacity factor. Downtime almost always planned and scheduled. Wind/Solar are not reliable. They are intermittent and not schedulable. The provide power when the weather permits. For example right now we have a storm in Germany, but it is holiday seasons, with electricity demand low. All that wind energy and nowhere to go. In order to make intermittent sources viable, you need backup. So in addition to having to vastly overprovision the EEs themselves (due to the 15% capacity factor), you need to additionally provision non-EE backup power generation. Which then sits around idly until needed. How many times are we supposed to overprovision to make intermittent source viable?!? It's a pretty non-sensical plan, but at least it's a plan. Except for one minor detail: the backup power generators are fossil fuel based. Preferably gas. So in addition to the idiocy of having to double up your energy generating infrastructure (intermittent primary, schedulable backup), that backup is not CO2 free. Oh, and there's a little bit of a geopolitical problem as well. Wouldn't it be better if the backup were not fossil fuel based? Well, I'm glad you asked: yes it absolutely would! Except we don't have many of those, except nuclear. Except nuclear doesn't really make sense as a "backup". Because it already produces carbon free electricity, and like PV/Wind, its operating costs are low, it just makes sense to keep it on all the time. And since it is actually reliable, not intermittent like PV/Wind, you actually can keep it on all the time. And then you just don't need the "primary", because the "backup" is superior in all respects. Well apart from ideology.

lispm 3y ago
> Downtime almost always planned and scheduled Not in 2022 in France. Not 2011 in Japan. > All that wind energy and nowhere to go. Currently it drives much of the electricity in Northern Europe. > Wind/Solar are not reliable. The arguments you list are all the old arguments. Years ago it was unthinkable that we (Germany) would have >50% electricity renewable (the typical arguments from 25 years ago: not reliable, grid unstable, blackouts, Dunkelflaute, ...) in total over a full year. Now we are there. It's still expanding, even without nuclear. Since April 2023 all reactors are closed. Gone. And no, nuclear is not a good backup solution in an energy landscape, which will be driven mostly by renewable energy. That's the future, world-wide. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/zjpqexkqypx/ShareofGlobalElecMix.png https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/zjpqexkqypx/Shareof... The read curve is the share of nuclear power for electricity production. Linear going down. > Well apart from ideology How about your ideology? All the people not of your opinion are following an ideology, but you don't? Get off your high horse, please.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  >> Downtime almost always planned and scheduled > Not in 2022 in France. Not 2011 in Japan. Nice try, but no cigar. Note the word "almost". Even two times are perfectly consistent with almost always. In fact there were a lot more unplanned downtimes than that. Because unplanned downtimes do happen. They're just not a big deal, because overall, the capacity factor of nuclear is >90%. You really have to stop cherry picking individual data items that suit your ideology and start looking at the overall data. Nuclear: >90% capacity factor. EE: <15% capacity factor. So it is about as abnormal for EEs to be available as it is for nuclear plants to be unavailable. That's the actual facts. And of course, 2022 in France was scheduled downtime. It then took a little longer than scheduled, because they found something during the inspection. As I wrote elsewhere, you can't plan for what you find during an inspection. Because if you could, there'd be no point in doing the inspection in the first place. It's why you do inspections, to find out if there's something you are not expecting. > [Wind and solar not reliable] ...old arguments. The fact that they are old does not make them any less true. I don't care what other people said was impossible. This crap only "works" with massive fossil backup, which isn't really an option. > no, nuclear is not a good backup solution Totally agreed. Because once you have nuclear as a "backup" you simply don't need the unreliable "primary", as the "backup" is already CO2 free and also cheap and reliable. And since fossil is not a viable alternative backup either, there is no viable backup. So the whole Energiewende is built on a lie. Which is why so many countries are now turning around in order not to repeat Germany's mistake. Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germanys-energy-crisis-dispels-several-myths/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany... "Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy." Amid an energy crisis, Germany turns to the world's dirtiest fossil fuel https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ... GERMANY’S ENERGIEWENDE A disaster in the making https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Vahrenholt-20171.pdf https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Vahrenholt-2... Germany's Energy Catastrophe https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe/ https://quillette.com/2022/07/14/germanys-energy-catastrophe... And no, your curves are not meaningful. In fact, as I and others have pointed out before, multiple times, they are utterly meaningless. That countries were getting out of nuclear 2 years ago is well known und undisputed. Even FRANCE was getting out of nuclear 2 years ago, betting on renewables. They no longer are. Between then and now something happed. Something you refuse to acknowledge or even recognize, because it doesn't fit your ideology, and you don't care to look at actual data. > How about your ideology? What ideology? I was against nuclear and in favor of the Energiewende. Until I started look at the actual data. In detail. Something you absolutely, categorically refuse to do. > All the people not of your opinion are following an ideology, Nope, people who ignore the data are following an ideology. To quote the Forbes article again: "Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy." Populist but irrational energy policy. Ideologically driven. Glad I could clear that up for you.