The military coup in Niger has raised concerns about uranium mining in the country by the French group Orano, and the consequences for France's energy independence.
Well, you can potentially design them in a way, that you can control the energy output more easily. However, then they will be even less economical than they are now. If you run at lower output, you waste more fuel.
@MattMastodon@Sodis Only about 40% of demand can be directly met from volatiles (wind and solar), i. e. no intermediate storage. The rest has to come from »backup« or »storage« or however you call it.
Current storage tech is still almost 100% pumped hydro. Batteries have not made a real dent there yet. But pumped hydro is not enough by far, even potentially, and batteries have a long way to go to be even as scalable as pumped hydro.
So, backup. The only clean, scalable backup is nuclear.
@MattMastodon@Sodis Careful about labels. »Renewables« often includes biomass (which is just fast-track fossil tbh) and hydro (which is not so volatile). I’m talking about wind and solar specifically (volatiles).
40% is roughly the mean capacity factor of a good mix of volatiles. This is what you can directly feed to the user from the windmill/panel, without storage. You can expand a bit by massive overbuilding, but you can’t overbuild your way out of no wind at night.
Mostly we don’t use energy at night. In the UK there is a peak in the morning. In the UK we mainly use gas to fill this. We will have to find a storage solution as nuclear can’t be upscale that quickly. Gas was meant to be used just to fill the gaps but it’s quickly become a staple.
We need to find a way of smoothing the graph. Energy storage is the best option in the short term.
@MattMastodon@Sodis Again: that demand is lower at night is already factored in. Roughly 40% of demand can be directly met by volatile sources. You may think nuclear is slow to deploy, but it’s still much faster than anything that doesn’t exist.
The gap is 60%. Gas is a fossil fuel. Varying use is mostly a euphemism. If you hurt industry, you won’t have the industry to build clean energy sources.
@Sodis@MattMastodon Nuclear power plants can quite easily do load following. It happens regularly e. g. in France. However, since it has the lowest running costs, other sources are usually cut first as far as possible.
The bulk of the generation from wind and solar, and nuclear for 15% - 20% base load. Also some Geothermal where cheap but it’s potential is small.
Grids improved to cover local and intermediate renewable generation, and extended to facilitate import/export.
Variable electricity pricing for demand shifting.
The result is vastly reduced need for storage, probably batteries used intelligently in a hierarchy of grid and home, compared to the naïve “just build wind and solar and batteries.”
Then add in:
A 90% transition from personal cars to free green public transport (#FGPT), taxis, e-bikes, bicycles, and walking.
This all needs no new technology (although for nuclear there are several advances not yet used at scale: molten salt, small, modular, U238, thorium), it needs a fraction of the rare earths, and delivers a huge in reduction steel production courtesy of car recycling.
[P.S. Dams damage eco-systems so I’m not in favour of more hydro generation, and pumped hydro storage needs the spare water too.
Biomass not “net zero” and obviously not “zero” which we actually need. It’s just more carbon burning plus extra pollution from the agriculture and other products of combustion. It increases land use, and at present the industry is full of corruption with trees being burned sometimes alongside shredded car tyres… and subsidised!]
Batteries are great for short term storage (Hours to Days), but the further you are from the equator, the more you need seasonal storage.
Hydrogen possibly fits part of that, if it is produced by electrolysis when wind / solar are in surplus.
Problems are:
how to store it, it leaks through most storage containers, requires vast amounts of energy to liquify and
The round trip from Electricity via H2 to Electricity is very inefficient.
the cynic in me is wondering if this is just an excuse to rebrand fossil fuels
That’s exactly what it is. Hydrogen power plants are just trojan horses for methane. Since they can burn one as well as the other, but CH4 is much more economically convenient.
Without klicking anything, 61 million € is practically nothing, so I do not expect this to be a big, impactful project. It might be a nice little extra income from surplus hydro power (Norway is almost completely running on hydro).
Then looking into the links, this supports just a small fleet of up to 40 ships. Which is good.
I think it can be a good way for this niche, and it might be one little thing less to worry about.
nuclear uses lots of energy to build. Even windmills use fibreglass.
It may be more expensive to build, but not because it’s more energy intensive. Especially when you look at capacity. It is by far the most efficient source, requiring much less material and energy per generation capacity.
That’s a big claim, and having watched a #nuclear power station being built I struggle to agree. Especially if you look at full life cycle from mining uranium to disposal.
Also most of the work with a #windmill is establishing the site. Once done repairs and upgrades are cheap.
And #renewables are quick. Chuck a spare at it and you’ll have useful energy in a few months. The main problem in the UK is government obstructing them.
I’m challenging the claim about energy use, not cost. Uranium mining is a rounding error in this regard.
What you’re missing from seeing a power station being built is how much energy it produces. Being conservative, a single reactor generates as much energy as around 1000 wind turbines. And that’s without taking into account the full life cycle, which can probably 3-4x that number.
The energy density numbers of nuclear power are such completely different orders of magnitude to other energy sources that people usually have trouble understanding them in real world terms.
Well zeros can make a big difference and the cost is not to be sniffed at. Our local reactor is looking to cost 40 billion. You could run every school and hospital in Wales for 2 years with that amount of money and have spare change to build a couple of tidal lagoons.
You can easily build 1000 wind turbines for the cost of one reactor and do it in less time.
Again, I’m not talking of costs, that’s a whole different discussion. Only pointing out the environmental impact. Although I very much believe in a few decades we’re going to find out the hard way how much more expensive it is not to have spent the money now, and we’re going to be wishing we did.
I assume you are talking about #embodied energy and found this.
But I would say embodied energy of renewables or #nuclear is almost irrelevant as it is a one off. It’s an investment so will reap a massive reward in CO2 reduction year on year.
However, cost is a real problem for nuclear. And in terms of scaling up fast, #wind & #solar seem best.
deleted by creator
Well, you can potentially design them in a way, that you can control the energy output more easily. However, then they will be even less economical than they are now. If you run at lower output, you waste more fuel.
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @Sodis
Free and cheap?!?
You are one deluded individual. Go do your research. Also, nuclear never had subsidies, only wind/solar did.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @Sodis Only about 40% of demand can be directly met from volatiles (wind and solar), i. e. no intermediate storage. The rest has to come from »backup« or »storage« or however you call it.
Current storage tech is still almost 100% pumped hydro. Batteries have not made a real dent there yet. But pumped hydro is not enough by far, even potentially, and batteries have a long way to go to be even as scalable as pumped hydro.
So, backup. The only clean, scalable backup is nuclear.
@Ardubal @Sodis
We have to be careful. Different counties have very differnt energy make ups. I live in the UK where nuclear is
I don’t understand where you got 40% from. This seems arbutrary.
In the UK Nuclear is 15% and renewables about 40% (over the last year) we mainly burn gas for the rest.
@MattMastodon @Sodis Careful about labels. »Renewables« often includes biomass (which is just fast-track fossil tbh) and hydro (which is not so volatile). I’m talking about wind and solar specifically (volatiles).
40% is roughly the mean capacity factor of a good mix of volatiles. This is what you can directly feed to the user from the windmill/panel, without storage. You can expand a bit by massive overbuilding, but you can’t overbuild your way out of no wind at night.
@Ardubal @Sodis
Mostly we don’t use energy at night. In the UK there is a peak in the morning. In the UK we mainly use gas to fill this. We will have to find a storage solution as nuclear can’t be upscale that quickly. Gas was meant to be used just to fill the gaps but it’s quickly become a staple.
We need to find a way of smoothing the graph. Energy storage is the best option in the short term.
Or we can vary use.
#nuclear #renewables
@MattMastodon @Sodis Again: that demand is lower at night is already factored in. Roughly 40% of demand can be directly met by volatile sources. You may think nuclear is slow to deploy, but it’s still much faster than anything that doesn’t exist.
The gap is 60%. Gas is a fossil fuel. Varying use is mostly a euphemism. If you hurt industry, you won’t have the industry to build clean energy sources.
deleted by creator
@Sodis @MattMastodon Nuclear power plants can quite easily do load following. It happens regularly e. g. in France. However, since it has the lowest running costs, other sources are usually cut first as far as possible.
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel
The optimum imho is:
The bulk of the generation from wind and solar, and nuclear for 15% - 20% base load. Also some Geothermal where cheap but it’s potential is small.
Grids improved to cover local and intermediate renewable generation, and extended to facilitate import/export.
Variable electricity pricing for demand shifting.
The result is vastly reduced need for storage, probably batteries used intelligently in a hierarchy of grid and home, compared to the naïve “just build wind and solar and batteries.”
Then add in:
This all needs no new technology (although for nuclear there are several advances not yet used at scale: molten salt, small, modular, U238, thorium), it needs a fraction of the rare earths, and delivers a huge in reduction steel production courtesy of car recycling.
#Energy #Renewables #ClimateCrisis #Climate #Nuclear
[P.S. Dams damage eco-systems so I’m not in favour of more hydro generation, and pumped hydro storage needs the spare water too.
Biomass not “net zero” and obviously not “zero” which we actually need. It’s just more carbon burning plus extra pollution from the agriculture and other products of combustion. It increases land use, and at present the industry is full of corruption with trees being burned sometimes alongside shredded car tyres… and subsidised!]
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Ardubal @Sodis
Tesla marketing heaven.
#FGPT
deleted by creator
@Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Ardubal @Sodis
So
One #nuclear power station will buy about a million #electric cars. Most #EVs have a 300km range but most days go <30km.
So the mean available #energy capacity of all these cars would run the #UK for 24 hours using #V2G (Vehicle to grid)
This could be a massive #car share scheme with a couple of EVs on every street
Or #electricbuses
All the energy could come from #wind or #solar and the #battery fills the gaps when there is no wind
#climate
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
A few points to factor in:
- A nuclear power station has a much longer lifetime than batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.
- You need not only the batteries, but also the panels/turbines to fill them.
- Conversion and storage losses are significant. Attached is a rough overview for H₂.
- Transmission infrastructure costs to/from individual cars are significant.
- 24 h is not enough by far to balance out usual fluctuations.
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Batteries are great for short term storage (Hours to Days), but the further you are from the equator, the more you need seasonal storage.
Hydrogen possibly fits part of that, if it is produced by electrolysis when wind / solar are in surplus.
Problems are:
how to store it, it leaks through most storage containers, requires vast amounts of energy to liquify and
The round trip from Electricity via H2 to Electricity is very inefficient.
That’s exactly what it is. Hydrogen power plants are just trojan horses for methane. Since they can burn one as well as the other, but CH4 is much more economically convenient.
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Without klicking anything, 61 million € is practically nothing, so I do not expect this to be a big, impactful project. It might be a nice little extra income from surplus hydro power (Norway is almost completely running on hydro).
Then looking into the links, this supports just a small fleet of up to 40 ships. Which is good.
I think it can be a good way for this niche, and it might be one little thing less to worry about.
deleted by creator
It may be more expensive to build, but not because it’s more energy intensive. Especially when you look at capacity. It is by far the most efficient source, requiring much less material and energy per generation capacity.
@Claidheamh
That’s a big claim, and having watched a #nuclear power station being built I struggle to agree. Especially if you look at full life cycle from mining uranium to disposal.
Also most of the work with a #windmill is establishing the site. Once done repairs and upgrades are cheap.
And #renewables are quick. Chuck a spare at it and you’ll have useful energy in a few months. The main problem in the UK is government obstructing them.
And they’re still being built.
I’m challenging the claim about energy use, not cost. Uranium mining is a rounding error in this regard.
What you’re missing from seeing a power station being built is how much energy it produces. Being conservative, a single reactor generates as much energy as around 1000 wind turbines. And that’s without taking into account the full life cycle, which can probably 3-4x that number.
The energy density numbers of nuclear power are such completely different orders of magnitude to other energy sources that people usually have trouble understanding them in real world terms.
@Claidheamh
Well zeros can make a big difference and the cost is not to be sniffed at. Our local reactor is looking to cost 40 billion. You could run every school and hospital in Wales for 2 years with that amount of money and have spare change to build a couple of tidal lagoons.
You can easily build 1000 wind turbines for the cost of one reactor and do it in less time.
Of course, when they get fusion going…
Again, I’m not talking of costs, that’s a whole different discussion. Only pointing out the environmental impact. Although I very much believe in a few decades we’re going to find out the hard way how much more expensive it is not to have spent the money now, and we’re going to be wishing we did.
@Claidheamh
We certainly need to spend the money now on #renewables to get #ZeroCarbon and mitigate #climate breakdown.
I assume you are talking about #embodied energy and found this.
But I would say embodied energy of renewables or #nuclear is almost irrelevant as it is a one off. It’s an investment so will reap a massive reward in CO2 reduction year on year.
However, cost is a real problem for nuclear. And in terms of scaling up fast, #wind & #solar seem best.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, it runs at full power most of the time. That’s what being a “baseline energy source” means.