• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 months ago

    First, no, that’s not what I said. If you’re only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.

    Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesn’t scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you can’t just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also don’t want to be generating more than is used.

    Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload “until we have adequate storage”, the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that don’t already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.

    I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 I’d have said yeah, we should do it. But every time I’ve looked into it over the last 10 years especially, I’ve had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldn’t be building nuclear; it’s just an inferior option to renewables.

    • Frokke@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Aaaw, someone doesn’t like the tone used? Well that’s unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?

      Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won’t be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.

      It’s not an XOR problem.

        • Frokke@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          In the summer. In ideal conditions. Lets talk again once you’ve tried 12 continuous months in the heavily populated northern hemisphere. 😉

        • cqst
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          100% renew

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

          All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it’s own ecological problems associated with it.

          Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.

          https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

          The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these “100% renewable” countries.

          • Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there’s still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They’re nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.

            100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.

          • Frokke@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…

            Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.

            Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.

          • vzq
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • Resonosity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.

              Also, look up the 7 Hydrogen Hubs in the US as an example of this market getting started. There are no downsides to developing a hydrogen market if we’re going to have oodles of excess renewable energy.

              • vzq
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                deleted by creator

                • Resonosity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  I mean, if anything, the fact that the Oil & Gas industry uses hydrogen for refining means that there is a possible, robust market for green hydrogen to get into (don’t like this because it means oil is still the focus, when we need to consider green chemistry and stop with oil).

                  The O&G industry also helped usher in solar PV at an early stage because of the needs of remote power in hazardous environments such as offshore rigs and near potential sources of release like oil tanks (I used to work as an engineer in O&G myself).

                  There’s actually a lot of work by GE and Mitsubishi to start shipping new gas turbines to be capable of firing a non-zero amount of hydrogen in addition to natural gas. I think some plants are even capable of doing 50/50 hydrogen/natural gas, with that former number increasing year over year.

                  Hydrogen could outstrip conventional fuels someday. The bottleneck has always been supply though.

                  If renewables are so abundant and cheap, then we’ll finally have a reason to deploy hydrogen infrastructure on a massive scale (at least in the US). Hell, you look at the major inverter manufacturers for utility PV like Sungrow, and they have containerized electrolyzers ready for implementation. I haven’t done a market survey, but if they’re in the game, then so are other players.

                  If you want to be convinced of the progress of hydrogen, I would look into the project that Sargent & Lundy is working on in Utah. They’re planning on using a salt cavern for hydrogen storage, and I believe there is a CCGT onsite as well to make use of the generation.

                  Hydrogen is even on the minds of offshore wind developers like Siemens.

                  The substance isn’t doomed like others in this thread make it out. There is active interest in the market to develop a supply chain and economy.

                  Edit: The one thing I don’t see a lot of people talk about though is where the raw materials for this hydrogen will come from… Likely groundwater unfortunately. Since groundwater is already a highly sought after resource for consumption and agriculture, I’m not sure if hydrogen in this way will take off. This is why offshore hydrogen seems to be more promising, but as we see with wave and tidal power, the ocean environment just sucks for any commercialization.

                  It’s an uphill battle, but the same can be said for the climate crisis in general. Hope we make enough progress before it’s too late.