401–410 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I live in Switzerland, 60% of my electricity comes from hydro. Switzerland in an anomaly on virtually every metrics you can come by.
yes! and we are the worst on many other metrics!! for instance one of the biggest marketplace for worldwide oil. take any of the worst polluting company, most have their headquarters here.
We’re all a bit jealous of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pumped water storage also isnt that expensive.
Pumped water storage is unsurprisingly limited by the same factors as hydro - there aren't that many steep mountains suitable to put lakes on top in most places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's still cheaper and faster building pumped storage, wind and solar (all Any numbers on that pumped storage? how much is needed to store 1 week of France energy needs ? How much it costs then?
France has never generated more than about 75% of its electricity (not power which is much lower because of diesel cars, fossil heating etc.) with nuclear. It regularly imports electricity from its neighbours, as well as selling its surplus (which it has even at only 75% electrical because the supply doesn't match the demand peaks.) The current best nuclear rollout on the planet falls far short of your test for being…
It is obvious that private companies or people will not buy some extremely expensive batteries for 1 week a year, it will not make economic sense. T he country needs some power plants that could work extra in winter or low light conditions, or we all buy 3x more solar panels and expensive batteries.
Looks like a G20 country is serious about the impending "climate emergency". Regardless of the motives and timing behind this, I think its great to see a country is actually being serious and practical. Anyone going on about the climate and refuses to put nuclear energy at the forefront of the conversation is unserious and is only interested in virtual signaling in my opinion.
They will be serious if they actually build it, unlike Flamanville. While you call non-nuclear options "virtue signaling," the attempts at building it in France and the US have been virtue signaling. We don't have the industrial capacity to build nuclear. Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs. Locking in the high costs of nuclear, for the 60 year lifet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consumption of natural gas itself has indeed increased. But the sum of natural gas + coal has still decreased a lot. From aprox. 350 TWh per year in the early 2000s to 251,6 TWh in 2021. The partial replacement of coal by natural gas is at least in part caused by the transition to renewable energies. Until the transition is complete, natural gas is the best fossil fuel option to even out fluctuations in the produ…
> gas power plants can be switched on and off very quickly at peak times (in strong contrast btw to nuclear power plants) Not true - from the wiki: Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and…
Besides, the actual rates of change for nuclear power plants vary widely, depending on the current load of the power plant. According to the German Wikipedia the actual capabilities of (former) nuclear power plants in Germany ranged from 1.1% to 10% per minute. When the plant was below 50% of its load, the possible rate was near the lower end of this spectrum. The maximum of 10% was only possible when the plant was already running above of 80% of their nominal power. The value was also very much dependent on the operating state of the plant.[1] So the 5%/minute you mentioned are just an average.
Historically, nuclear power plants have been used as load following plants in Germany, but this was during times, when the overall volatility of power production was lower than today. And when it comes to new nuclear power plants currently being planned elsewhere, their load following capabilities are to my knowledge typically an afterthought.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lastfolgebetrieb#Kraftwerkstyp https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druckwasserreaktor#Lastfolgebe... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siedewasserreaktor#Lastfolgebe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But the truth is degrowth and lowtech are the only option for climate change. Look what "green capitalism" has done for us since the 60s: yes things keep getting worse, and it's not gonna change as long as money and industry are involved, as they are the problem not the solution. You can't just close coal plants and petrol industry and replace it it with dreams, even if you reduce word wide consumption you still nee…
> We were burning coal and wood here in Romania before capitalism Sure, but on what scale before capitalism (16th century)? Yes, some cultures have disappeared due to over-using their resources, but none threatened to take away humanity and millions of other species along with it. Or did you mean before the collapse of USSR and so-called socialist countries (which are arguably State-capitalist and very similar in ter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finance is not free, there is always opportunity cost.
Interest rates are very low still though. Governments can borrow at nearer to 1% than 10%.
Just the latest news that is the same as the last decade of bad news:
> EDF now estimates the total cost of the project at 12.7 billion euros ($14.42 billion). Its expected cost has more than quadrupled from the first estimate made in 2004.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de...
$15B of lithium ion battery factory would have far far greater carbon impact, dollar for dollar. $1B on early stage startups would similarly be more impactful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs. That is the easier part, show me the battery deployments please , the ones that can backup the country/state for a week.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
It does not claim that wind and solar can replace gas and coal 100% just the super obvious conclusion that we could do more if we invest more in wind turbines and also in the grid (the disadvantage is how you balance the surplus, like companies from country A and B and C have too much electricity most of the time but only 25% could be sold so who gets screwed and has to turn off it's production? If they get screwed then why invest ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown! I assume these are to some extent temporary price hikes caused by the fact we generate a lot of electricity from natural gas, and the weather is cold so people also need that gas to heat their homes right now (also it hasn't been too windy this winter which doesn't help electricity generation). So - ignoring the Russia thing - you still have to consider year-round averages to compar…
Sure, it's "temporary" in the sense that if suddenly gas was cheap the price goes down because it is in fact set by the fuel for gas turbines. I don't expect that to happen for a long time, even though in theory it could happen this afternoon. Traders are already assuming Summer 2022 gas prices will be very high. Without that it is only possible for prices to fall after we build a lot more wind turbines (projects out…