| General > General Technical Chat |
| Germany shutting down last nuclear power plants on April 15th |
| << < (31/56) > >> |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: tom66 on April 14, 2023, 08:54:28 am --- --- Quote from: daqq on April 14, 2023, 08:35:23 am ---Capacity is not the same as power. Installing 100GW of renewables capacity is not the same as being able to shut down 100GW worth of other sources. See attachments (yes, possibly cherrypicked data, but quite realistic scenarios): --- End quote --- Yes of course, you cannot use renewables only. This is why you combine renewables with storage (hydrogen looks like a possible contender, but other options are available). You use the stored energy during periods with less wind/solar/etc. And combine that with long HVDC links that can move power across the European continent or from north Africa, or repurpose suitable gas transmission systems to move hydrogen. Once you have an 'overbuilt' network you have huge incentives to use that energy instead of storing it because using it is cheaper than storing and using it later. So there come certain incentives to use energy when it's most available, you can imagine aluminium smelters for instance following wind or solar patterns with their shifts, or electric vehicles which spend most of their time parked up charging on excess energy at low cost. --- End quote --- Nope. The problem is that in the end you will want a distribution network with an even load because that will be the most cost efficient use of the distribution network. Part of low/high tariffs are not only to get an even load of sources, but also to get an even load on the distribution grid. To put that into perspective: Before the war in Ukraine, 50% of my electricity cost are distribution costs. The other 50% generation costs. Both numbers before taxes. The same goes for generation. Electricity costs a fixed amount to generate. What is sold below a profitable price must be compensated with a higher price later on to compensate for the loss. This causes huge price fluctuations which is not beneficial for a society and economy. Currently some companies in the NL have changed their working hours because their equipment is too expensive to run. It is cheaper to just pay the employees for not working compared to paying the electricity bill. Needless to say this is bad for business. So in the end you will want electricity for a constant price during the day (24 hours). Keep in mind that a lot of people / companies have fixed tariff contracts so they can plan their finances better. Solution: stop thinking in terms of generating precisely enough electricity to meet demands AND stop thinking in terms of making demand meeting generation in case of renewables. Both are not going to work in the future. All the elasticity needs to come from hydrogen storage (as batteries are too expensive for storage that needs to bridge >8 hours; just google that). With elasticity coming from storage you can start to add flexibility to your sourcing. A country can ofcourse choose to become reliable on hydrogen imports but recent events have shown that is not a good idea. And that is where nuclear power plants come in handy: they buy a country independance and reliability. And you can run these at their optimal economical operating point 24/7. When the electricity isn't needed right now, it goes into hydrogen storage. In the NL the government likely has seen this as a great advantage. Since the NL has been a big natural gas producer until not so long ago, it is already in 'our' DNA to be energy self sufficient to a large extend. |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 10:05:51 pm ---ALL energy we receive ultimately came from the Sun in one way or another. But energy consumption will only grow, because that is the metric of civilizational development, so at some point it will overtake anything that Sun can provide us no matter how large that amount is. If you want a proof that energy consumption will only ever grow, look at entire history of humankind. All technological advances hinged on using more and more energy. There is no historical precedent when that wasn't the case. --- End quote --- Bollocks. You can't fit enough people on earth to consume the amount of energy that the sun delivers to our planet. Over a 24 hour period, the sun supplies the earth with average amount of 160Watt per square meter. Now calculate the number of square meters of our planet and multiply. If you analyse how much energy 'we' consume, you'll see that the Sun supplies the earth with like a million to a trillion times more energy than we consume. Just for kicks look at the pictures of how many solar panels need to be put in the Sahara to supply the world with electricity. The amount of energy the sun produces is insane. |
| asmi:
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 14, 2023, 11:37:57 pm ---Bollocks. You can't fit enough people on earth to consume the amount of energy that the sun delivers to our planet. Over a 24 hour period, the sun supplies the earth with average amount of 160Watt per square meter. Now calculate the number of square meters of our planet and multiply. If you analyse how much energy 'we' consume, you'll see that the Sun supplies the earth with like a million to a trillion times more energy than we consume. Just for kicks look at the pictures of how many solar panels need to be put in the Sahara to supply the world with electricity. The amount of energy the sun produces is insane. --- End quote --- Bollocks is what you've just spewed, because it is absolutely contradicts all human history. We won't need more people for that, just compare how much energy per human was consumed just 100 years ago vs nowadays, and there is absolutely no reason to believe this trend will not continue. |
| james_s:
The sun does produce an insane amount of energy, but a large portion of that energy falls where nobody can make use of it. There are significant costs and losses to transport energy over long distances. |
| SiliconWizard:
:popcorn: |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |