521–530 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realize it went as low as that. Some wind farms can hit 65% https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/worlds-first-fl...
True but with nuclear you can usually schedule the downtime well in advance. With wind it just stops whenever, whether you’re ready for it or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I personally share the opinion that the standard that nuclear is held to is higher than it needs to be — on the basis of the old "deaths per TWh" chart — this standard leads to them being both expensive to build and run, and also to it being shut down for months making it unreliable . I've noticed by trying that one cannot simply win a political argument by waving the banner of utilitarian ethics. (I'm hoping f…
> share the opinion that the standard that nuclear is held to is higher than it needs to be — on the basis of the old "deaths per TWh" chart And if you ignore possible deaths from Chernobyl, how about the purely financial cost?
But my claim is, if Chernobyl hadn't Chernobyled, the $/MWh price would probably be lower.
I'm not making a specific claim that it would be cheap enough, though; I don't have enough relevant background to guess the magnitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear proponents when trying to sell nuclear love to shout about how successful France is. Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great...and now France's nuclear program is terrible and the result of 20-30 years of neglect and politics? Also, which part of "nuclear plants are sensitive to environmental changes" didn't you get? If there's no cooling water, or the water is too hot, th…
> Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great... That person is really just spreading FUD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35659262 > How many times do people need to be told that with all the renewables coming onto the grid, we don't need more base load? Of course we do > We need storage. Yes. And it's non-existent. There are literally no grid-scale strage solutions in existence…
Projects like xlinks are not directly comparable to other mega projects as they are far less monolithic. They can scale out rather than having to scale up.
In terms of staffing a nuclear station needs many different professions who are relatively expensive, specialised, and need to be heavily monitored for safety. Renewables requires talent obviously but probably less so.
As a French not expert in the matter but living near nuclear plants: - one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material - rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly - nuclear plants are very unreliable, we almost got out of power this winter and next winter will be equally tough (only an abnormally hot winter avoid cuts...) - the government wants to simplify control organism and laws around…
"I am not against nuclear power" - this is litterally the calling card of a tactical hit, forum-wise. It very obviously means the opposite of what it says. I generally look at how people perceive things like this as an IQ test. At the moment the HN visitors upvoting/downvoting things in this thread have failed my baseline IQ test. How I wish all presumably well-intentioned but badly informed and ill-educated people w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you're reading the data upside down. Take care.
Still goes up. Does not matter how much you are trying to gaslight me https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu...
Here is the official data for Germany for every year in the past several decades https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
The bottom three are:
black coal in magenta
nuclear in gray
brown coal in brown
Nuclear shutdowns started in Germany in 2011. It should be easy to see that coal went down significantly since then and is at a historic low. Which brings me back to my original point:
Renewables have been pushed for 20 years and have started to accelerate only 10 years ago, yet they are already displacing fossil fuels in many countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> share the opinion that the standard that nuclear is held to is higher than it needs to be — on the basis of the old "deaths per TWh" chart And if you ignore possible deaths from Chernobyl, how about the purely financial cost?
Current $/MWh prices are high enough that, given current LiIon prices (and that LiIon is what we get even if we don't put in any effort to get cheaper alternatives given its widespread usage), I recommend people stop trying to make it happen and put their efforts elsewhere. But my claim is, if Chernobyl hadn't Chernobyled, the $/MWh price would probably be lower. I'm not making a specific claim that it would be cheap…
$790 billion at 2021 cost
so my point was perhaps it is being held to a higher standard for a very good reason.
(NB. I'm not automatically against nuclear power, but I seriously question their potential cost against their very definite benefits. We had one Chernobyl, I guarantee we'll have another in time. Question is, how hard are we prepared to work to push that possibility, statistically speaking, as far into the future as possible)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you're reading the data upside down. Take care.
Still goes up. Does not matter how much you are trying to gaslight me https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu...
From your news source:
> "Only in Germany, with 10 gigawatts (GW), is the reversal at a significant scale. This has increased coal power generation in the European Union, which is expected to remain at these higher levels for some time," the IEA's annual coal market report said.
So your news source only mentions Germany, and only during an energy crisis caused be a war. If you only look at this one country, and only from February 2022 to April 2023 you may find coal consumption going up, but if you look over any other period, or include any other European country, you will see the opposite effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the consumers to pay an extra price The (botched) green energy transformation has given the country I live in top 3 highest electricity prices in the world and it's not even particularly green at all. Literally cannot get worse. And it seems to me that one half doesn't understand how incredibly bad high energy prices are both for people and industry, while the other half cheers at the prices because it causes deind…
If you talk about Germany than this has nothing to do with nuclear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I am not interested what a nuclear shill posts on twitter. Here is the source for my numbers (which are the official ones). Sorry, in German but I assume you can guess the labels: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/STR...
Again: total numbers mean absolutely nothing on a night when there's zero production from renewables. That "shill" is showing data . Just the fact that you don't like this data doesn't make it invalid. Right now it's night in Germany, and even though the wind is blowing, it's only at 40% generation. And look, there's coal, supplying 22%, and gas supplying another 9%: https://imgur.com/a/3bYudyd
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too bad numbers don't work when it's a quiet night, and you have to burn gas, caol, and biomass to make up for those nuclear reactors you've shut down: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
Also, the reason this is only possible at all is that Germany uses the rest of Europe as a giant battery to manage the non-dispatchability of renewables. The import-export balance often changes by as much as one third of Germany consumption in 12 hours [1]. The electricity prices are also becoming zero[2] in Germany during parts of the day, which is a great outcome only on the surface. As this progresses, the consequ…
