|
freezepops posted:More nuclear power does not necessarily mean less greenhouse gas unless you ignore the time it takes to build a plant and when emissions are released. Nuclear power has similar emissions as wind, but a lot of those emissions are in the constructions of the power plant. It is very possible that a mad dash to build nothing but nuclear would actually mean far more CO2 is in the atmosphere than a renewable energy investment if global warming hits a tipping point prior to nuclear power's reduced emissions have had time to make an impact. This is a point I've not seen discussed here or anywhere else a lot, but I did some basic research a few years ago about this and a basic problem is that a nuclear plant, from decision to emission net zero point, needs roughly 30 to 40 years to actually become beneficial to the environment. 15 to 20 years build time plus 10 to 20 years of production. If you consider that in carbon intensive countries like china, german, the US etc. this would mean roughly 20 years of unmitigated high emissions while the plant is built, the emission savings per power unit are looking way less favorable. This is of course not proper on a plant level, but if you look at an entire systems transformation, it's pretty bad. Renewables need roughly 5 years in bureaucratic nightmare countries like here (germany) for the construction, solar need way less, but a wind turbine is energy positive in less than 9 months. Overall building a large amount of renewables to replace baseload fossils seems way more efficient and cheap. I'm not ideologically against nuclear, but especially in recent years I've found less and less actually convincing arguments why they are preferential to renewables in 90% of the use cases for new production. As an aside, france found new technical issues during maintenance of multiple power plants which will increase maintenance time further. https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/u...d0-7ce0023f8bb4
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2023 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Serious question with no snark: do those numbers change with a standardized vs bespoke design? If you’re able to just throw down a proven design for the 5th/50th/500th reactor, do you come out better because you’re not constantly reworking it? I'm not in any way qualified to give a proper answer to this but standardization almost always leads to quicker and more efficient build times. Though I vaguely recall reading somewhere recently that for some reason standardization made nuclear plants more expensive in history? Found this article that touches on it a bit, tldr seems to be that the unique local requirement for each plant take on the lion's share of construction costs. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2023 10:02
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
It's not really how the electricity grid works here tbh., that's just a snapshot of a random day. Ultimately by shutting off nuclear there's less necessity to temporarily shut down renewables when the grid capacity is bound by non-flexible production methods, so in the end it'll propably remain at roughly the same intensity until gas or renewables can replace coal. As for the prices I usually check https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=month which has neat charts of the spot market and other stuff, as you can see the prices didn't change in any noticable way. It also shows the amount of renewable and fossile/fissile produced daily, which is also neat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 10:43
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Yes, I too found this comment weird and I think it reveals a big misunderstanding. Renewable production doesn't generally shut down, they are the cheapest source of electricity and will always produce at maximal capacity as far as wind and sun is available. On the other hand traditional nuclear is non-flexible and will run at static production at all times. It is the fossil fuel production that will adjust based on demand and renewable production. This is not really the case for modern renewables after a certain percentage of grid capacity, wind and solar is curtailed often due to load management, mostly due to grid stability issues and sometimes due to low profitability. The biggest factors for this is that compared to low-flexibility power plants such as nuclear or coal they are much easier and quicker to curtail due to very low stop- and startup times and no associated costs, coal or nuclear are either slower or not cost effective below certain loads. You're right that fossil fuels are adjusting frequently but they also have limits and depending on how much they need to power down the time variability can be multiple hours which is a lot compared to roughly 15 minutes of gas or wind. What is true that in total they are not curtailed a large amount, but they are curtained often and regularily. Here in germany a lot of these issues can be mitigated by increasing grid capacity, which especially to the south is very lacking, and renewables need to now be quickly expanded to push out the more expensive fossil fuels. Tho I do have to admit it is very likely emissions will be negatively impacted by this in the short term, my former statement was too fired from the hip due to conflation multiple things related to the local energy system. Somewhere about 3% of renewable production is curtailed in a yearly average and shutting of nuclear will allow a smaller amount to be used instead, but it will not be a 1 to 1 replacement. It all depends on how much renewable capacity is increased in the next few years, really. mobby_6kl posted:Does anyone have the paper/study/thing that showed price per MW of different sources over time, like several decades? I think it was showing nuclear being pretty cheap until renewables overtook it and continued to get cheaper quickly. I think I saw it ITT but can't find it now. This is a good one, dunno if it's the one you mean: https://www.lazard.com/media/sptlfats/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
At least here in germany there are copious rules and regulations about maintenance, inspections, repairs and so on in place, often coupled to insurance or permits. As a result they are often in great shape and continue to produce electricity for longer than their 20 years predicted lifetime. Now that a bunch of turbines are reaching or have reached that age they either get used for longer or sold to other countries for another 20 years of generation. There's wear and tear but it appears that like with solar they can be used much longer than anticipated. 30 years is the current go to value for new planned turbines afaik.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Germany on track for the lowest monthly co2 emission of the last 12 months in may 2023, 6 weeks after shutting off the last nuclear plants, showing that while shutting them off before coal was not a good move, it's neither lead to increased emissions nor costs. It's been a good wind year so far with average sun hours, but in general nothing much outside of the long term average.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:OK still doesn't change the point I was making about the importance of reliable baseload. 1000 reliable megawatts of production are worth more than 10,000 intermittent megawatts of production (this number was made up). For renewables to work, we absolutely need to expand nuclear as fast as possible as well. Just expanding renewables just means there's gonna be a lot of excess production that can't get to where it's needed and that there will be times when despite massive incredible surpluses, the opposite will happen. Particularly since research posted in this thread shows all of europe can often be windless. Reliable baseload is often misunderstood in that it's not a stable level of output that needs to be produced at any moment, but a minimum load that needs to be available for the grid to work. It's usually at night since that is traditionally when the least amount of energy is needed. You don't need base load power plants, if this base load can be provided otherwise. The scenario of over- and underproduction you mentioned is usually concidered in any serious renewable grid scenario, the missing capacity is supposed to be provided by peaker plants such as hydro, bio and regular gas, or niche methods such as hydrogen or methane/methanol. Those are the reliable base load. This means it's not entirely renewable, though the emissions from fossils would be quite low overall since the windless and sunless times where they'd be needed are statistically much lower than you'd assume. I'd also like to point out that nuclear and renewables are a horrible fit, they don't work well together. Nuclear does need to run at capacity for it to be profitable, which leads to it cannibalizing renewables which need to be shut off when those could run at full capacity. This also increases costs for renewables, grid management, and so on. It's been discussed itt that french nukes do load following and that plants are capable to some extent, but what I've found in the meantime points to this being limited and not very desireable since it reduces profitability. It appears like you can either go mostly nuclear, or mostly renewable. Concidering a nuke plant needs around 10 to 15 years lead-time plus another 10 years+ to recoup its front loaded emissions, as well as being vastly more expensive, it seems like transforming fossil grids to renewables is the sensible approach.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
Okay, then imagine I said economically preferable, which considering a production cost of upwards of 10c/kWh for nukes still means full-load as often as possible.breadshaped posted:Besides E-Fuels what are some things you can blow a massive overproduction of electricity on? Heat. No joke, people are increasingly trying to use overproduction for residential heat, and heat storage is also possible. Electricity to heat is one of the easiest and most efficient transformations, and since you can predict available overproductions for a few days ahead it's not as difficult to implement in load planning as some other conversions. Though you'd either need spot market coupled electricity tarifs or heat pumps for personal use or a heat grid that's designed for district heating. Not as crazy or complicated as it sounds tho. I can see this becoming more popular. Son of Rodney fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jun 20, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 14:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In reality we need such a huge amount of baseload, and so much of it is still supplied by fossil fuel plants running at full capacity, that it doesn't make any sense to pit nuclear against renewables like you're doing here Only one of these options can quickly and cheaply fill that gap tho. Electric Wrigglies posted:The same want to fully utilise production (ie not be curtailed) exists for every generation method (well except overbuilt hydro I guess). Renewables hasn't really come up against it as due to instantaneous cost and sometimes law, renewables are operated in preference to other sources. Once you overbuild wind by three to four times and don't have other sources to cut back, it stands to reason that your windfarm will have a capacity factor of say 60% and a utilisation of 25% meaning the capex costs are diluted over far less production (which is the issue you say is for nuclear). Renewables are definitly already facing it, though not yet at a prohibitive rate (around 3% per year so far in germany). The idea regarding overbuilt capacity is to use it for flexible load requirements, which are set to grow regardless of underlying power production. EV, heat pumps, hydrogen and other conversion storage or batteries can be utilized very flexibly, which would increase overall utilisation. Seeing as renewables are about 1/3 the cost of nuclear you could overbuild them regardless and end up with the same overall cost. There's also quite a bit of play for making a sensible mix, solar is way more productive in the summer while wind is in winter, I'd estimate a more or less even split would be viable. Electric Wrigglies posted:Nuclear works very well with solar in a lot of the world (especially warmer parts) as demand increases with the sun and solar neatly provides for that most of the time so the nuclear can be sized for the overnight requirement instead of the top of the duck curve. Wind doesn't work with anything great except bulk surplus hydro (which ideally should go the way of the dodo unless it is reusing previously disturbed ground such as old minesites as discussed previously) and peaker plants (which if they are using hydrocarbon, is not very good). Nuclear also supplements hydro very well, allowing it to be used hydro to be used as a peaking plant rather than base load supply. The point with solar is a good one but if you only focus on solar for a majority of the peak load demand you have issues during darker days, and would need to compensate with hydrocarbons yourself, or have other renewables available which again leads to grid crowding. In specific countries with near constant and reliable solar emissions that's a good solution though, I have to admit. Kinda wondering which countries you mean specifically since the ones I'm thinking of that have very constant solar also don't have abundant fresh water for nuclear cooling, and I'm assuming the need for that would be pretty big in a hypothetical nuclear + solar combination grid. And there's not a lot of ways around using limited peaker plants anyway, even france is producting 9% of it's electricity production with gas, a mostly renewable grid would not need more, possibly less. Electric Wrigglies posted:The other method people want to use with renewables is dumping otherwise curtailed energy into demand on demand (RO plants, rainy day thermal heating of the ground for future area heating, alumina plants the more fanciful suggestion) but this is an area again that nuclear performs ok because the production is so predictable. Power hungry tasks often don't take kindly to being utilised in an up and down or unpredictable manner and generally want to be utilised as much as possible (I work with multiple facilities and our least utilised facility is at maximum draw over 94% of the time). Using wind is both somewhat unpredictable but definitely variable consumption for the rest of the grid plus the much more unpredictable and variable wind generation complicating sizing and operation of the plant you wish to consume excess power with. Yeah this is a fair point, but these kind of sites wouldn't really be included in flexible load management in the first place would they? They'd fall under base load. What kind of fascilities do you work with? Sounds interesting. SpeedFreek posted:This argument has always bothered me, we should be doing as much as possible to avoid burning stuff for power. Do both, not the current solution of peaker gas turbines to run all night. Building nuclear now leads to baseload and peaker gas turbines running anyway until the plant is done in 15-20 years. As long as its not on the grid you need to provide that energy anway. Doing as much as possible would mean doing it as fast as possible, which nuclear is not able to or not ready to in the case of these hypothetical gen IV plants.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Neither option can meet the baseload power demands of the US cheaply So why not use the one that's faster to rollout
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2023 10:39
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:we are both agreed that nuclear is the obvious choice then. Nuclear is neither fast nor is building the necessary capacity in any way realistic, and also depends on peaker plants and storage, why do people keep pretending it doesn't 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2023 14:28
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:It is faster than something that has not been invented yet (multi day storage that is not hydro). You do not need multiple day storage until the very end tail of a mostly renewable grid transformation, until then gas peaker plants, hydro or exisiting storage capacities can take care of that. You don't actually need that many peakers as one would think for dark and windless days anyway, depending on location. And of course a nuclear grid needs peakers unless you overbuild to a degree that makes them even less economically viable. France utilizes around 9% gas plants and another 9% hydro on average, and I doubt that'll change much. And unforeseen maintenance issues also need to be able to be compensated. cat botherer posted:Yeah, this should not be about "cheap." Nuclear plants can be built fast. We've built them fast in the past, and China is building them fast now. We know it's possible. Of course it should be about "cheap", it's one of the major factors in energy financing. What else would you base those decisions on? Ideology? Fliiping a coin? Potential for painting racing strips on the cooling tower to make it run faster? Even china is building vastly more renewables in any case. Nuclear is not a bad option, all things concidered, it's just not a good option right now for the issues we are facing *right now*. You can theorize about building nuclear plants fully "unleashed" in as little as 5 to 10 years, but under those conditions you could build wind or solar plants in under a year.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear exists, grid storage at the scale you're describing does not. Hydro exists in many countries, as do other technologies that can be used, people seem to conflate grid storage with batteries, which correctly do not exist at the needed size and propably won't in any significant speed. Here in Germany 5% of baseload is already provided by bio-gas, which can be ramped up at least a bit. It both works as storage, baseload and peaker plants. small scale battery systems for homes are also increasing, before I switched to my current job I worked with a company who were planning to use a swarm of these as grid compensation measures. The issue is that there is no one storage catch all, it's gonna be a creative mix of small scale decentralized stuff coupled with larger scale projects. If battery power, molten salt or otherwise, ever reaches a viable scale all the better Also you can build whatever you want, and people will continue building nuclear, it's just not economically or technically viable in the vast majority of use cases. Apart from the basic constraints that are discussed often stuff like not having nearly enough building capacity or personel for a huge push is also a problem. Who's gonna build and man these nuke plants? You'd need to first build the infrastructure and train people, while renewables are already deep into that process and able to do it faster.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2023 07:10
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I feel like today's Real Engineering on the German Nuclear idiocy relitigates the same nuclear back and forth that the thread goes through on the regular. It also doesn't answer any of the questions that it asked, and offers no solutions, so you're completely right 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
After reading up a bit on small scale modular nuclear plants the idea seems neat, it seems to have the same cost problems as nuclear development does tho and it remains to be seen if the stated higher price per MWh can be fulfilled: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-30/mini-reactor-cost-surge-threatens-nuclear-s-next-big-thing The current US MWh price of nuclear of 373 dollars surprised me tbh, that's eye wateringly expensive and was more than I thought. Is this really the US average cost? And since people here seem to be upset about the German nuclear shut-off you'll be happy to hear that since the last plants were shut down, germany has had the lowest fossil fuel power generation in both may and june in the last decade. Even beat out 2020 which was of course a record low.  (Power generation side, consumption is significantly lower) Reasons are probably a mix of good solar and wind conditions in general, a relatively big amount of capacity expansion, and lower exports, which pushed emissions up last year due to needing more coal and gas plants active. The spot market prices have remained low as well, pushing out coal and to a lesser extent gas plants.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
It's a fascinating idea, though I have a lot of doubts regarding lubrication and vibrations. At bigger scale theres gonna be a lot of shocks and vibrations going through the system and a flimsy frame of rods and rails doesn't seem like it'll be able to compensate those very efficiently. Also as mentioned wind is less stable and more unpredictable at ground scale, inside the prandl layer up to 100 meter the roughness of the ground is a major restriction to viability in some ways. Random buffets of winds will stress the structure, it flows less reliably, etc. That aside I think the argument about them looking less intrusive is also a bit optimistic, having a bunch of gigantic cloth lines littering the landscape is not very attractive either. At first glance I also don't know why you'd not use a vertical low wind speed turbine instead, which are already established. The argument about this concept being able to pitch into the wind is interesting but since the angle is fixed it would not be at full effectiveness, would it? I don't really know enough about sailing to understand that part tho, maybe that's really the big breakthrough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 08:25
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Not on your life, my Hindu friend! Lmao. Aerorail! Aerorail! Aerorail!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Also I really wonder if it's more practical than simple pv plus small battery pack. Yes, the pricing sounds extremely attractive but before a commercial model is out the numbers is just marketing guesswork and you can put a 3x multiplier to it easily I'm guessing. Still, love these alternative energy harvesting methods, people need to keep trying, who knows what funky stuff can still be developed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:yeah but this one is made by white people so its better Whiter power supporter, mods?? I'm not up to date on battery tech, these sodium batteries were always touted as being very cost effective compared to lithium and easily scalable, is that correct? Anyone itt have a brief summary available on current state battery technology regarding costs, flexibility, life time load cycles etc. ? We're reaching a point where battery systems are approaching rentability for grid scale applications and it's a fascinating point in time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2023 07:37
|
|
|
Energy storage is a fascinating topic with a lot of potential but the "it's so simple, why did noone ever try this before?" Projects are hilarious and strangely endearing to me. Our Prof during uni once calculated how you could simply store energy by converting energy and easily available ressources to aspirin, and back. It theoretically worked but was completely inefficient. Other fun ideas that were discussed were high pressure underwater air storage next to offshore wind turbines, a heavy weight in a underground shaft coupled to a generator that would pull it up or let it go down according to need, giant flywheels, and more viable ideas like pump storage or methanol. Viability always ended up being severely limited by complexity, transmission and efficiency, and I see no reason for this to be better in that regard. Son of Rodney fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Dec 18, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2023 08:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:IIRC renewables in Australia have shown no real ability to handle base load without fossil fuels which is again, disastrous for the long term problems of climate change; so it kinda sounds like because of previous tragedy people have decided to double down on more tragedy. You recall wrong. Australia is one of the best candidates for 100 renewable in the world so I have no idea where you got that idea from.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's been brought up multiple times in the thread that Australia actually cannot reach 100% renewables with current technology, it will still need base load generation no matter how many solar panels and windfarms get built out and battery storage/transmission isn't at a state which can handle sudden short falls of wind or night time. This thread also thinks nuclear is somehow, magically, against all reality a solution to climate change, so I'm a bit wary about those bring ups. Also I've mentioned it before: base load generation does not equal fossil or nuclear generators, it only means theres a necessary minimum power requirement that needs to be fulfilled. Wind can be baseload, solar can be baseload, the issue is not falling under a minimum threshold. I've read multiple studies and models over the years claiming it's completely feasible to get to 100 percent renewables in Australia, including this one . What are the arguments against this? Electric Wrigglies posted:I think his theory is based on that the best hydro is already pretty much tapped out in Aus and is pretty minor say as compared to Brazil or Scandanavia and as is shown in WA, natural gas is the solution for solving intermittency when you don't have hydro and don't want nuclear. Everything I've read or heard suggests Australia is absolutely abundant with potential hydro storage locations, this government brief is a good summary I assumed biogas, which is technically renewable, is equally feasible. Before battery and/or hydrogen become a major player I'd assume this would be tapped earlier as it's an established technology and relatively cost competitive. Being basically made of open space and renewable resources I've not seen anything to suggest that it could not become 100 percent (or as close to it as possible) quite quickly. You could of course argue about the semantics of a 100 percent vs say a 97 percent system, as those last few percentage points are the tricky ones, or the fact that australia has a spread out population with different grid requirements, but that's just arguing for the sake of it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2023 11:04
|
|
|
https://www.iwrpressedienst.de/ener...ilowatt-hour-en Hinkley getting a strike price of 15 cents per kWh, jesus. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/spain-confirms-nuclear-power-phase-out-extends-renewable-projects-deadlines-2023-12-27/ Spain exiting nuclear by 2035 due to old plants and renewing them not being viable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Hey let's check how things are going People itt using cherry picked values to own the  Germany has had the lowest energy intensity on electricity production in the last, well, ever, appart from 2020. Renewable energy production increased by 7,5% from 2022, and convential production was reduced by a whopping 24%. This is due to a reduction in industrial activity, increased electricity imports and an increase in renewable energies. France was the biggest taker of german energy exports and Denmark the biggest supplier. There was a net import surpluss of 10 TWh, mostly due to renewable energies and french nuclear being cheaper than the sucky coal and gas plants still in use, which is a good development.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2024 05:25
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:just imagine if Germany utilised its wealth, technical and industrial base to install low carbon generation three decades ago, might have g/kwhr numbers approaching those of anti-green French. Saying they are doing better with wind and solar given their location and circumstances is missing the wood (pellets heh) for the trees. And a lot of the hate on Germany is not just because they are all NIMBY on nuclear now, it is because they are also generally the preachiest of EU nations on what other nations should do up to and including opposing counting nuclear as the low carbon generation that it is (mainly because one of the big arguments against nuclear is that it is too expensive and doesn't work all the while France has been running reasonably economical-price, low-carbon power since the '70's for the majority of their grid). Yes that sure would have been amazing, but we didn't due to having lovely coal and gas industry controlled conservatives in power for decades, some of which are close personal friends to putin. Doesn't change the fact that renewable production increases have led to significant reductions in emissions, and continue to do so while other countries in the EU and outside are either not doing anything or are increasing theirs. The energy policy of Germany has been poo poo awful, that has nothing to do with replacing fossile and fissile sources with renewables tjo, but with awful, awful political decisions. The current developments are still good tho. GABA ghoul posted:Seeing how almost every commercial and residential building around me is now hastily slapping PV modules on their roof makes me wonder how much that affects official power consumption statistics. I assume to grid operators the installation of the modules would seem like a simple decrease in demand from factories and office buildings and they don't have access to anything more detailed than what capacity was installed. Yeah it usually just gets registered at the Marktstammdatenregister in case of small scale balcony or rooftop PV up to 25 kWp, after that you need to enable grid shut-off control which includes a meter that provides 15 minute data to the grid operator. So those definitely get counted, below that the electricity just kinda goes into the grid and yes, just gets counted as reduced consumption. Overall since everything is registered in a central register and grid operators therefore know the rough production capacity at any time and location, they can approximate how much is produced depending on weather data and consumption profiles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 05:24
|
|
|
Kaal posted:In 2023, the wind and solar share of German electricity production reached its highest percentage of all time. This was primarily due to a sluggish economy using less energy generally, increased energy imports, and the early shuttering of the last of the German nuclear reactors. Nope, renewable produced energy has reached the highest amount 2023 of all time. This is also the highest percentage, so you're half right. Also yes, increased imports are a great success story since it means co2 pricing on cheap coal has worked, which was a historic source of german electricity exports. Coal and fossile sources have reduced their contribution on production by 24% in fact due to not being competitive more and more often. This was replaced by low emission renewable or nuclear imports and increased inland renewables, of which the changing european grid has more and more available.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:in German, but tl;dr: You missed the part where due to projected costs and current interest rates the entire project is deemed essentially "science fiction" and by first planning 2 reactors, then reducing that to 1 due to issues with cooling, and now 4 with no realistic financing options, the entire thing is "essentially already failed".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:huh listening to science friday today, and talking about how the solar eclipse on monday has an interesting effect on the current grid. like we have more solar, and now they have to balance things for those minutes of darkness. This stuff is way more in depth and interesting than you might suspect, here in germany the production by local and country wide solar (and wind) naturally changes quickly and has to be compensated/regulated to keep the grid frequency stable, grid providers or electricity marketers nowadays use weather prediction models that can predict the effect of cloud banks or single formations moving over a larger solar park. I used to work at a metering company who used the live 10 minute data to optimize an in house weather modelling simulation that could accurately predict stuff like that up to 30 minutes in advance. Fascinating stuff that I didn't understand the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2024 19:44
|
|