simloo

6 ms·

1.
by simloo 6y ago
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because production in a gas power plant is simply regulated by burning more or less gas. If you need more gas, you can likely buy more. While production in a hydro power plant can be broug
2.
by simloo 6y ago
As I just stated, yes, that's called baseload power. It applies equally to hydro power, nuclear, coal, gas and all other baseload types. If you make them larger they can produce more. "Energy batteries" when talking about the
3.
by simloo 6y ago
Not the parent, but I don't think you can seriously argue that all political decisions are for the good of the many. Most decisions have a vocal minority and the majority doesn't care left or right, which means the minority has sw
4.
by simloo 6y ago
I've never heard of countries considering the entire danger zone from a large hydroelectric dam uninhabitable. They're so large that it's simply not feasible. Take the largest hydro station in Sweden for example, Harsprånget[
5.
by simloo 6y ago
Yes, but by using that definition all baseload power generation (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, etc.) are "energy batteries", which makes the term meaningless. By "energy batteries" when talking about the electric grid, peop
6.
by simloo 6y ago
I countered this in another reply to you, but the levelized cost of energy is not a good way of comparing intermittent and baseload power sources since it completely ignores the costs associated with intermittency. Nuclear in particular is
7.
by simloo 6y ago
I know that this is a big issue for some people, and I understand that. However, the limits are set way below the level considered dangerous and are political. Countries with lower problems or that want to be seen as taking the problem seri
8.
by simloo 6y ago
To be fair, that statement was in the grandparent and not the post I replied to. However, I'd argue > Large steam thermal baseload plants are increasingly uncompetitive, coal or nuclear. is generally wrong, since gas power plants ar
9.
by simloo 6y ago
I'm sorry, I have misread your source. It clearly states "unsubsidized". My bad. I think my points about the LCOE still stand, though. The LCOE is not a good measurement for comparing intermittent and baseload power sources.
10.
by simloo 6y ago
Ok, fair enough.
11.
by simloo 6y ago
Not the parent, but if you look at what's currently replacing nuclear power world-wide it seems to be gas. Gas extraction is also not very environmentally friendly and releases a lot of nasty toxins into the air and surrounding areas,
12.
by simloo 6y ago
A hydro power plant can't be used as a battery, it must be purposely built as a pumped storage plant. The cable in question allows Norway to sell hydro power to Germany (and if Germany has a surplus, they can sell electricity back). Th
13.
by simloo 6y ago
> These events release a lot more radiation than coal plants. Unless you have data that supports this statement, I'd state the opposite. It's easy to think nuclear accidents release a lot of radiation, but the actual accumulate
14.
by simloo 6y ago
That's true, but I think most other models assume there's a lowest dosage which is totally safe? For very low doses, even if LNT predicts a very low rate, it still a lot of cancer cases for a population of several million. Even if
15.
by simloo 6y ago
We've got the same problem over here in Sweden, granite in a lot of places. We also, just for good measure, constructed a lot of buildings in the 50s and 60s from radioactive autoclaved aerated concrete made from alum shale containing
16.
by simloo 6y ago
That sounds surprising to me since different kinds of loan guarantees are common for large industrial installations and not unique to any trade. There are no specific ones for renewables that I'm aware of, so perhaps I gave that undue
17.
by simloo 6y ago
Sorry, yes, "a handful" was stretching it, but it's not a big issue. Wild boar meat is hunted and sold all over Sweden and the radioactivity is measured. If you look at the sources more closely, you'll see the "70%&
18.
by simloo 6y ago
Wait, how did you arrive at that conclusion? All nuclear accidents so far have resulted in very low doses to the average individual. Of course this doesn't apply to plant workers in the direct vicinity of e.g. the Chernobyl accident, b
19.
by simloo 6y ago
Yes, due to radon gas from the ground which is really a big problem in Scandinavia. Just making sure nobody thinks a big part of the accumulated dose when living here is due to Chernobyl.
20.
by simloo 6y ago
You're ignoring one of the largest problems with renewables: they're not actually replacing fossil fuels, they're replacing nuclear power which was almost carbon neutral to begin with. The intermittency of wind and solar mean
21.
by simloo 6y ago
Don't forget Russian gas. Eastern Europe is still heavily reliant on Russia for gas supplies, and Germany is heavily expanding its use (look at the Nord Stream pipelines). Nuclear power phase-out means more reliance on Russian gas and
22.
by simloo 6y ago
Not the parent poster, but you should add what's actually being built: a lot of gas plants. They're cleaner than coal, but lets be honest, still not particularly good for the environment.
23.
by simloo 6y ago
Those numbers simply don't make sense for several reasons. They are with subsidies (not without) as the web page itself states. The numbers for nuclear are likely based on the failed European projects as China and Russia are building a
24.
by simloo 6y ago
There's no insurance that insures a hydro power plant against dam failure either, nor large chemical industries. It's nothing abnormal.
25.
by simloo 6y ago
All large power plant installations are given such loan guarantees, including wind power and solar power farms. It's a pretty good way for the government to make sure they are built. A lot of countries, such as here in Sweden, have a s
26.
by simloo 6y ago
Because the price per kWh for renewable sources is artificially low. To give you some examples: Renewables still have various subsidies (e.g. in construction) while non-renewables are taxed, wind power plants in particular have shorter life
27.
by simloo 6y ago
I don't get why you're being downvoted. China is building a lot of power plants, a lot of them are nuclear (and coal, etc.).
28.
by simloo 6y ago
Nuclear power hasn't become magically more expensive in the last decade or so, it's because it's been hit with taxes and fees in a lot of countries while renewables haven't (or, in some countries, renewables are still ev
29.
by simloo 6y ago
> The low prices you see today are almost entirely when wind is blowing and sun is shining. Yes and don't forget all the different subsidies and government grants renewable sources still get. All other sources of power, including nu
30.
by simloo 6y ago
No, it's likely due to hydro power. Hydro has had several large scale accidents killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam in China. Coal kills sl

More ›