[flagged]
Also, if you care about low prices, nuclear is among the worst options.
21–30 of 108 posts
[flagged]
Also, if you care about low prices, nuclear is among the worst options.
When I see these charts I definitely don’t want to be that sweating guy in grid operator’s control room desperately trying to turn off some solar parks to stabilize the grid. Solar generation goes from nothing at night to 80+% during daytime. Ouch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But on the right track. We're building the solar equivalent of the total cumulative nuclear capacity germany has ever build every 3 years. If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear and fusion, we might actually make it to CO2 neutrality in a reasonable timeframe.
Shutting off nuclear power while commissioning new coal and gas plants is anything but being on the right track.
[flagged]
Our _green_ minister of the economy and energy continued running the reactors even past their agreed run-time because the Ukraine war happened, but they simply reached end-of-life.
So we've replaced the small amount of nuclear we had with renewables already. Now you might ask why we don't build new ones to move away from fossil fuels faster. But why should you? It's impossible to argue that it would be economical given this chart:[1]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it obviously wrong? During a duration of time it is okay so say an amount of energy (MWh) was produced, right?
Because it's a nonsensically small number; and it's contradicted with the graph immediately below it, that shows larger amounts of energy (MWh) generated in individual hours, than the supposed figure for the entire week. The peaks on the graph are ~40,000 MWh/hour sustained over multiple hours (eyeballing it). The amount generated in the entire week can't be 17,000 MWh, a number smaller than that. (For anyone unclear…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still better than being a nuclear reactor operator.
Why? I would expect it to be comparatively chill, as it should be running mostly constant and reliable?
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But on the right track. We're building the solar equivalent of the total cumulative nuclear capacity germany has ever build every 3 years. If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear and fusion, we might actually make it to CO2 neutrality in a reasonable timeframe.
Shutting off nuclear power while commissioning new coal and gas plants is anything but being on the right track.
New gas plants are required to make use of gas as a storage medium one way or another.
It's currently 13:20 and sunny, Germany is at 183g/gCO2eq, not good.
Imagine how low CO2 levels would be if nuclear plants were online...
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/29295/umfrage...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But on the right track. We're building the solar equivalent of the total cumulative nuclear capacity germany has ever build every 3 years. If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear and fusion, we might actually make it to CO2 neutrality in a reasonable timeframe.
Your solar doesn't work well in winter, and in night. At this point it's more important to build energy storage to drive down the CO2. > If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear Nuclear already reached the target. It's not some "whataboutism".
- "During the week to May 13, Germany's solar farms produced 17,531 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity, according to data from LSEG," This is an obviously wrong number, and I'm not even sure how they accomplished such a specifically weird mistake. "Mean of 17,351 MW" would be plausible. That's different by a factor of 168.
Why is it obviously wrong? During a duration of time it is okay so say an amount of energy (MWh) was produced, right?