|
CommieGIR posted:Maybe they have a financial incentive to sell this? That is more likely why the models might not reflect actual capability of replacing baseload. Ok, you are maintaining that the e.g. Lazard LCOE numbers are wrong, are ideologically driven, and the unsubsidized LCOE numbers have hidden subsidy baked in. I don’t believe you—I think your accusation of ideological bias is projection, but whatever. CommieGIR posted:Economical does not always equal good, just as cheap is generally the opposite of quality or capable. Its amazing you guys keep going back to that same argument. I am always puzzled whenever you go on these spiels because whenever you crap on a non-nuclear technology in this thread it is almost always implicitly for the reason that it is uneconomical.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Dameius posted:No I mean we have to replace the entirety of the gasoline for internal combustion engine infrastructure over to our grid if we want to go zero carbon. Which means our energy generation grid will need to produce even more power on top of what it would need to do just to keep up with "normal" growth. I’m confused. What’s your complaint here? That it is impossible to power the world with only wind and solar? That the buildout of wind and solar isn’t instant and free?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Ok, you are maintaining that the e.g. Lazard LCOE numbers are wrong, are ideologically driven, and the unsubsidized LCOE numbers have hidden subsidy baked in. I don’t believe you—I think your accusation of ideological bias is projection, but whatever. The battery tech isn't there, the storage tech isn't there. Again, nobody in this thread things renewables are bad. You are the only one going on a rant about how everyone but you is wrong about it. The storage is not enough, its not expanding enough, and it cannot meet what we need. You didn't answer my question: What is the problem with Renewables + Nuclear versus unproven and unscalable battery tech that cannot expand as quickly as we need, no matter how cheap? silence_kit posted:I’m confused. What’s your complaint here? That it is impossible to power the world with only wind and solar? That the buildout of wind and solar isn’t instant and free? It is impossible. Nobody has done it at the scale you are saying it can be done. This is on you to prove, and that seems to be your confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:CommieGIR said that that graph doesn't account for capacity factors. It doesn't. You are right that utilities sure do, which might go a long ways to explain why battery storage is not a thing outside of a few heavily-publicized smaller-scale tests. You keep handwaving away all of these issues with irrelevant strawmen. Nuclear is not in any way available now here in the US. Even if the political will existed today to completely revamp the utility industry to make nuclear economical, not a single atomic joule will be supplied to the grid for at least ten years. How much wind, solar, and battery capacity could be deployed in that time frame? Adding additional load to the system would also be beneficial for renewables and nuclear energy as the transportation loads will increase load diversity allowing for better utilization of the distribution and transmission infrastructure. Increasing load also helps out renewables as the probability of not generating energy from solar/wind decreases as you increase geographical area and generators. This will reduce the storage duration requirements as a percent of overall energy generation as load is added. So this isn’t a compelling argument when comparing a nuclear vs renewable energy grid. CommieGIR posted:https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2021/utility-scale_battery_storage#:~:text=for%20all%20scenarios.-,Capacity%20Factor,2%2F24%20%3D%200.083). In my experience with MW sized battery controls they are practically on/off with the only limitation on ramp rate being dictated by the grid’s stiffness at the point of common coupling and voltage flicker concerns. I have also not seen a utility sized battery you couldn’t drain to 0% of its rated energy, obviously there is some charge left in the cells but we don’t write specs for the actual MWh cell size but performance based specs, generally. It is kinda true I guess that they aren’t always capable of constant rated power as it does depend on temperature, but this is true of all generation sources I am aware of. Batteries also have a lot of advantages traditional sources do not have. Due to the ability to place small batteries throughout your power system you can reduce distribution and transmission losses by load leveling, reduce capital expenditure on upgrades to voltage control systems, transformer upgrades, cable replacements etc. The cost of batteries is also cost competitive with older peaker plants and continuing to fall, to the point that even in an all nuclear system large battery deployments would still be done to reduce costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
freezepops posted:In my experience with MW sized battery controls they are practically on/off with the only limitation on ramp rate being dictated by the grid’s stiffness at the point of common coupling and voltage flicker concerns. I have also not seen a utility sized battery you couldn’t drain to 0% of its rated energy, obviously there is some charge left in the cells but we don’t write specs for the actual MWh cell size but performance based specs, generally. It is kinda true I guess that they aren’t always capable of constant rated power as it does depend on temperature, but this is true of all generation sources I am aware of. There is nothing else that can scale: You have 3 options: Nuclear, Gas, or Coal. Pick one. Buildout rates of Mw scale batteries are nowhere near where they need to be to offset those needs, we've cited numbers multiple times in the thread around this. Renewables plus any one of those is the only way renewables alone works. And there is no state currently demonstrate a wind/solar only grid, sorry. Even South Australia which gets held up as an example is largely backed by gas peakers and the rest of Australia burns fossil fuels like its going out of style. freezepops posted:Nuclear is not in any way available now here in the US. Even if the political will existed today to completely revamp the utility industry to make nuclear economical, not a single atomic joule will be supplied to the grid for at least ten years. How much wind, solar, and battery capacity could be deployed in that time frame? Its incredibly viable, the momentum is what is missing. And why does it matter that it'll take 10 years? Any project worth doing is going to take some sort of time period, and projects that have a future oriented goal even moreso. SMRs are rapidly becoming popular, there's a lot of new investigation into even classical PWR setups. Renewables + Nuclear grid is our best bet, because battery production is in no way scaling up fast enough to meet what we'd need for Renewables alone to meet it, especially given we are still in a significant wind drought in many places. I also find it dubious to say it needs to be one or the other. We need both. We can more than afford both. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is nothing else that can scale: You have 3 options: Nuclear, Gas, or Coal. Pick one. Buildout rates of Mw scale batteries are nowhere near where they need to be to offset those needs, we've cited numbers multiple times in the thread around this. Buildout rates of nuclear are also nowhere near what they need to be, so I don’t see why you’re giving nuclear a pass on that problem but complaining about storage. Like, yes, we should absolutely build more nuclear, I agree! But compare apples to apples here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Buildout rates of nuclear are also nowhere near what they need to be, so I don’t see why you’re giving nuclear a pass on that problem but complaining about storage. Because there is a physical limit to how much we can scale up battery production due to the need for raw materials. Nuclear does not have that limit. Let's be blunt, batteries are fine. But if you cannot scale it fast enough, what's the goal? Those same resources batteries require are also required elsewhere that eat into the required materials batteries need for grid storage. Nuclear, despite how specialized the plants are, use fairly common materials. Its most concrete and iron and comparatively little compared to battery storage.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
You are implicitly making an argument that renewables and batteries are uneconomical here!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Buildout rates of nuclear are also nowhere near what they need to be, so I don’t see why you’re giving nuclear a pass on that problem but complaining about storage. You can fix the nuclear build out problem. We've yet to magic up the solution to the energy storage problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:IDK, I’m an American, not German. I don’t follow German politics. Interestingly, multiple German posters have come into the thread and have posted that the non-Germans here have kind of misrepresented the situation there. Said German posters repeatedly fail to address the 40% of secret power that needs to be produced by fossil fuel sources, with Germany having shut down nuclear power plants otherwise capable of providing and improved fraction of clean base load underneath the half of their market that is renewable. It yet remains absolutely astounding how you and other posters manage to divert from the core fact that, in both the real world and hypothetically on paper, something has to be done about base load generation, and renewables are not up to the task alone. People get probed in here a lot because they continue to completely ignore or divert from a massive problem in energy policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You are implicitly making an argument that renewables and batteries are uneconomical here! And you are not addressing where we are going to get necessary raw materials for batteries at the scale necessary for global net carbon zero by 2040. Space? Alchemy? Why do you so insistently divert from the question of of baseload through avenues that themselves raise significant, hard limitations? edit: if it looks like the numbers themselves seem to show that we aren't going to be able to hit zero emissions by 2040 using battery technologies, something else needs to be found Let's get back to this quote: silence_kit posted:You are implicitly making an argument that renewables and batteries are uneconomical here! Is there some kind of fundamental law of nature indicating that renewables backed by batteries must be economical? What, is suggesting that Thing Might Not Work wrongthink? Is there some kind of unwritten rule of progressivism that we need to put the ideological cart before the horse and post hoc justify decisions that don't make any sense on paper and in the real world? Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR just posted that economics of electricity generation don’t matter a couple of posts ago!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:CommieGIR just posted that economics of electricity generation don’t matter a couple of posts ago! Way to misinterpret what I said: I said if you are only focused on 'economical' you are going to cut off your nose to spite your face. We are not ending our fossil fuel glut economically, because it IS the economical choice, and the economical green energy of choice has not and thusfar cannot displace it. silence_kit posted:You are implicitly making an argument that renewables and batteries are uneconomical here! Again, 'economical' is doing a lot of lifting here. Renewables are cheap, yes, nobody is arguing against that. What we're saying is only using the economical solutions will lead to continued fossil fuel usage. Hence why we continue to push renewables + nuclear to end the sudden growth of Natural Gas plants and now the return of Coal when it was supposed to be dead. Like natural gas, which was both seen as economical and "green". Its not, and now its not economical either. Its going to take some uncomically friendly solutions like nuclear to end the glut on economically friendly fossil fuels. We could easilly address that by ending fuel subsidies, but that would largely just punish the most impoverished among us. The solution is to spend on building out plants that, while expensive, can address the energy needs for the grid without the CO2 cost. That is gonna take time, like others have said, but investing in construction now to address issues that will no doubt be present 10 years down the road when those plants come online is what foresight is about. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I’m confused. What’s your complaint here? That it is impossible to power the world with only wind and solar? That the buildout of wind and solar isn’t instant and free? I don't have a complaint. I have a question. Dameius posted:My question is, how do you propose we deal with this extra demand on our energy grid from converting every internal combustion engine over to electric motors without nuclear in the mix?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
CO2 PPM today is 418.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:CommieGIR just posted that economics of electricity generation don’t matter a couple of posts ago! Poe's Law: it is hard to tell if you genuinely are unable to see several people responding to you on that exact topic, or if you see it but for some other reason you know that you can't address it directly. basically it's hard to tell if the hiccup here is genuine or if you're being malicious
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
"It's economical" I scream, refusing to address the solution's fossil dependency and the impossibility of implementing global scale baseload battery capacity without something like asteroid mining becoming common by 2040.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"It's economical" I scream, refusing to address the solution's fossil dependency and the impossibility of implementing global scale baseload battery capacity without something like asteroid mining becoming common by 2040. I think the most frustrating part is them pretending that we're anti-renewables. We're not. We're saying only renewables cannot address the issue as we've seen multiple times already. Renewables need something to back it, and battery storage is a future tech that is not scalable at the moment. So back it with expanded nuclear with both PWRs and SMRs. Invest in stuff other than fossil fuel subsidies for once. And stop pretending "10 years down the road" is a good argument not to do something. If we are only willing to invest in short term deliverable projects, humanity would already be dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
the most economical solution is that I hook up my exercise bike to the grid, because I will happily give you the energy for free. Because this is the "most economical," this is therefore the solution to global net zero emissions by 2040
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:the most economical solution is that I hook up my exercise bike to the grid, because I will happily give you the energy for free. Goon methane production
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'd also recommend reading the rest of this posters' posts--he seems pretty well informed and posts about topics more varied than the usual grumbling about underinvestment in nuclear electricity, misguided environmentalists, the fossil fuel lobby, unproductive regulations & red tape placed on nuclear power, etc. Thank you for pointing these out. Learned some useful info from Morbus's posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:Goon methane production But we're a dead gay comedy forum which means we'd be just another fossil fuel ruining the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
If we're talking about economics, then we should also talk about the massive subsidies being doled out by the US government. Fossil fuels pick up a princely $6 billion / year in direct tax subsidies. Solar and wind earn $5 billion / year in direct tax subsidies. Nuclear gets $1 billion / year, mostly in the form of regulator salaries. It's a very different world. Replacing those per-industry subsidies with a Green New Deal carbon tax would go a long ways towards implementing an 'economical' green energy solution for our climate goals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is nothing else that can scale: You have 3 options: Nuclear, Gas, or Coal. Pick one. Buildout rates of Mw scale batteries are nowhere near where they need to be to offset those needs, we've cited numbers multiple times in the thread around this. Time frame matters because we don’t have enough time to wait for nuclear to scale out for the needs of the US grid. We can currently add renewable energy sources to the grid, reducing emissions now. Transitioning transportation to electrical would then benefit from constant reductions in carbon intensity of the electricity generation. Renewables and nuclear isn’t a good option unless renewables are only deployed as a quick stop gap while waiting for nuclear power to come online. The low CF nuclear would achieve in a renewables + nuclear scenario would be far more expensive than a nuclear only or renewables only grid. At least here in the US we do not have the capability to deploy both, the US lacks the construction and industrial capability to deploy nuclear power at the scales needed but is rapidly expanding the ability to deploy wind and solar at larger scales and it looks like battery storage will have similar deployment curves over the next decade. If SMRs can be used to handwave away nuclear deployment issues, I don’t see why need to limit batteries to only lithium. There are alternatives to lithium that are likely to be available on the same time frame as SMRs. There are also no grids that have nuclear only, so again this is not a point that be counted against renewables. Certainly the issue of dispatch and control of an all renewable grid is a harder technical problem than the economic issues of an all nuclear + battery grid, but both technologies face hurdles that need to be overcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
freezepops posted:There are also no grids that have nuclear only, so again this is not a point that be counted against renewables. Certainly the issue of dispatch and control of an all renewable grid is a harder technical problem than the economic issues of an all nuclear + battery grid, but both technologies face hurdles that need to be overcome. France is majority nuclear, so no, that point doesn't stand. While they operate a mixed grid, to the degree that they are vastly majority nuclear and their emissions are significantly better than anyone who tried the Renewables Only approach, this is a laughable statement. They also have lower emissions than a certain country that already tried what you are proposing and have largely fallen flat. France has also doubled down on new reactor production, Japan and South Korea are also investigating it as well as Renewables. So I'm not sure how you can possibly make this statement. freezepops posted:Time frame matters because we don’t have enough time to wait for nuclear to scale out for the needs of the US grid. We can currently add renewable energy sources to the grid, reducing emissions now. Transitioning transportation to electrical would then benefit from constant reductions in carbon intensity of the electricity generation. You cannot increase electricity demand while also not being able to meet the growing demand without reliable baseload, this statement makes no sense. Also: Time frame may matter, but the idea that somehow invalidated long term projects is laughable. If we are not willing to double down on projects that may take a decade, but will result in clean energy, then even short term projects seem foolhardy freezepops posted:Renewables and nuclear isn’t a good option unless renewables are only deployed as a quick stop gap while waiting for nuclear power to come online. The low CF nuclear would achieve in a renewables + nuclear scenario would be far more expensive than a nuclear only or renewables only grid. At least here in the US we do not have the capability to deploy both, the US lacks the construction and industrial capability to deploy nuclear power at the scales needed but is rapidly expanding the ability to deploy wind and solar at larger scales and it looks like battery storage will have similar deployment curves over the next decade. I'm gonna highlight this statement particularly: There is absolutely no reason to believe battery is going to scale within the next decade to meet demands you are asking, where are you getting that idea? Estimated Grid Storage via Battery by 2030 barely tops 400 GwH available, we need terrawatt hours. Because not only do we have to have enough storage to cover extended periods, we have to have enough storage to address possible wind droughts and meet continuously increasing demand. You seem really willing to dismiss nuclear based on very little evidence other than "Well it can't be done now, so it can't be done at all" despite being a proven tech that can be done. And while I agree on the lack of industry in the US, these are solvable problems. The sheer lack of raw materials for batteries is far less solvable than standing up industry. The idea that humanity's only option is short term project with fairly negligible return and a questionable track record because "economics" is not really giving me a lot of hope. All the greenest, lowest emissions countries largely do so through a mix of renewables + nuclear. Its a proven strategy. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Renewables and nuclear isn’t a good option unless renewables are only deployed as a quick stop gap while waiting for nuclear power to come online. The low CF nuclear would achieve in a renewables + nuclear scenario would be far more expensive than a nuclear only or renewables only grid. At least here in the US we do not have the capability to deploy both, the US lacks the construction and industrial capability to deploy nuclear power at the scales needed but is rapidly expanding the ability to deploy wind and solar at larger scales and it looks like battery storage will have similar deployment curves over the next decade. This goes against everything that environmentalists have been arguing in regards to climate change, energy sources, or GND policy. A complex, specialized, cooperative energy infrastructure is the way forward, where energy technologies can be leveraged to be used to their best capacity. In a world clamoring for energy and absolutely dominated by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, there is every need to expand green technologies wherever possible. There is no silver bullet solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:All the greenest, lowest emissions countries largely do so through a mix of renewables + nuclear. Its a proven strategy. Excuse me, I would prefer to discuss energy policy on the precepts that I've theorycrafted within my own imagination. And vibes. Please stop citing real world example, it's, uh, it's....chuddy??
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
So are we just completely ignoring the stated long-term mass storage solution being favored and pushed by the EU as a whole, every (western) European country individually, and also many other states on the periphery of Europe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
I would offer that people apply the following filter to their posts unless they really want to get shootout with the same poo poo over and over and over: if you're going to talk about nuclear taking 10 years to build, you're going to get ripped on the fact that it's going to take just as long to build out comparable grid scale battery facilities, and that's assuming that we can mine reserves of conflict minerals fast enough to pull that off. If you want to talk about nuclear safety record, you're going to get ripped on the necessity of baseload and then a direct comparison of the amount of harm that fossil base load has done to humanity and the environment versus that of nuclear baseload. If you want to talk about practicality or other buzzwords that concern troll announced whether or not any particular technology is proven or capable of doing what we think is going to do, you best be sure that the alternative base load technology or advocating has significant implementation in grid scale base load utility operation, because what you're going up against has been working for tow or three generations. If you want to talk about whether or not something's economical, be prepared to comment on whether or not the solution can scale up to provide net zero carbon emissions globally by 2040, per the remaining few remotely optimistic RCP pathways IPCC continues to offer as cope. And if you want use price alone as a bottom line for base load generation technology, be prepared for people who care about to the climate change disaster to tear you apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:So are we just completely ignoring the stated long-term mass storage solution being favored and pushed by the EU as a whole, every (western) European country individually, and also many other states on the periphery of Europe? Hydro is very popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:So are we just completely ignoring the stated long-term mass storage solution being favored and pushed by the EU as a whole, every (western) European country individually, and also many other states on the periphery of Europe? Completely ignoring? No, absolutely not. Battery baseload is an extraordinarily responsive technology and it's going to be an important component of solutions long term. We can also get a couple hundred GW installed in the next decade, which is woefully inadequate by itself but does contribute to the heap. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:France is majority nuclear, so no, that point doesn't stand. They also have lower emissions than a certain country that already tried what you are proposing and have largely fallen flat. France isn’t an isolated grid. So no, it does not serve as an example of an all nuclear grid. quote:You cannot increase electricity demand while also not being able to meet the growing demand without reliable baseload, this statement makes no sense. Also: Time frame may matter, but the idea that somehow invalidated long term projects is laughable. If we are not willing to double down on projects that may take a decade, but will result in clean energy, then even short term projects seem foolhardy You absolutely can increase demand without necessarily increasing the need for dispatchable (the correct term is dispatchable, not baseload) energy sources. Especially since a lot of the transportation load could be added to the grid as a dispatchable resource. You can also meet dispatch requirements with renewables by overbuilding with battery storage. Transmission system upgrades would also go a long way in allowing larger demand without increasing the deployment of dispatchable fossil fuel units. Timeframe is important because investing large amounts into renewable deployment and grids will work against the benefits of a large scale nuclear deployments. Certainly nuclear power will still be around in the US and is useful in a large scale build out of renewable energy but it will not be a majority source of energy and will likely keep its current share of energy generation. Maybe some extra buildout will increase its share of energy in an optimal grid, but a majority of the work will be done by renewable energy. There is little evidence that nuclear will be able to outpace battery deployments in the future here in the US as the current existing battery limitations are also solvable problems. Except battery deployment problems are much easier for the US to solve because it doesn’t take a complete dismantling of the entire electrical grid system management to solve. I do not see any path at all to where the US can deploy large amounts of nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Completely ignoring? No, absolutely not. Battery baseload is an extraordinarily responsive technology and it's going to be an important component of solutions long term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Time frame matters because we don’t have enough time to wait for nuclear to scale out for the needs of the US grid. We can currently add renewable energy sources to the grid, reducing emissions now. Transitioning transportation to electrical would then benefit from constant reductions in carbon intensity of the electricity generation. In this entire thread who has talked about nuclear only? Do you think that it might be possible to do both renewable AND nuclear at the same time? That way if your batteries require another unobtainium we won't be out of luck running coal and gas 20 years from now. gently caress man I remember back in the 90's how the new lithium batteries were going to be so much easier to produce. It turns out that even though they were much easier then nicads they were not the magic bullet that some people promised. Nuclear has its share of problems. Almost all are on the policy and project management side. That's why the State should step in and run the project management of nuclear construction. They already do that for Navy nukes. France is probably going to end up nationalizing EDF. All of this is because it is too important to allow for market forces to determine our energy production. Because natural gas will win that fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:That is not the solution being pushed. Reread the thread, I guess. It has been restated over and over and over that this is exactly the solution being offered--a diverse portfolio couched heavily on nuclear base load and incorporating storage technologies like pumped hydro and grid scale battery installation and heavy investment in renewables.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:That is not the solution being pushed. Are you some sort of hydrogen fan? Certainly that's being pushed more than any alternative. Explain what you mean rather than being arch and cryptic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Are you some sort of hydrogen fan? Certainly that's being pushed more than any alternative. Explain what you mean rather than being arch and cryptic. it's easier to defend oneself when being deliberately obtuse, I guess
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Hydro is very popular. But becoming an issue with droughts. freezepops posted:France isn’t an isolated grid. So no, it does not serve as an example of an all nuclear grid. And yet France, Finland, Norway, and others have better results emissions wise from a mixed nuclear/renewable grid. My point stands. Nobody has a renewables only grid and is getting lower emissions than a renewables + nuclear grid for the power produced. And that's real, proven tech that is actively deployed. freezepops posted:There is little evidence that nuclear will be able to outpace battery deployments in the future here in the US as the current existing battery limitations are also solvable problems. Except battery deployment problems are much easier for the US to solve because it doesn’t take a complete dismantling of the entire electrical grid system management to solve. I do not see any path at all to where the US can deploy large amounts of nuclear power. The inverse being true: There is little evidence that battery deployments will ever meet or outpace our energy demand, so that also seems like a dead end. Might as well give up now, because we wouldn't want to invest in long term projects regardless of the real, proven benefit. I really have a difficult time believing that projects that take more than 5 years are not worth doing, that's literally how we got a space program, and long term projects are a signature of humanity. Kaal posted:Are you some sort of hydrogen fan? Certainly that's being pushed more than any alternative. Explain what you mean rather than being arch and cryptic. Oh man, hydrogen. Famous for being 96% fossil natural gas derived and is basically, right now, the biggest bait and switch available. France is planning on doing hydrogen from electrolysis with some nuclear plants, but for right now its almost all fossil fuels. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jul 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Reread the thread, I guess. "REPowerEU Plan posted:... Kaal posted:Are you some sort of hydrogen fan? Certainly that's being pushed more than any alternative. Explain what you mean rather than being arch and cryptic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
karthun posted:Nuclear has its share of problems. Almost all are on the policy and project management side. That's why the State should step in and run the project management of nuclear construction. They already do that for Navy nukes. France is probably going to end up nationalizing EDF. All of this is because it is too important to allow for market forces to determine our energy production. Because natural gas will win that fight. Yes but that is less likely to happen than a majority renewable grid. Popular opposition and NIMBYism are frustrating but they are real world factors that gets priced in to any project. Sticking to a purely technical analysis and ignoring politics is a pointless exercise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 20:01
|
|