Fracking!

[kentonio]

If that's your way of admitting your statements were obviously not correct in they're assertions, I accept your backing away from them

You may be dull, but you're not usually an idiot. Please try not to become one.

for whether it was intended to be hyperbole and sarcasm or not, I'll just say that it's difficult to discern which of your positions are intended to be ridiculous and ignorant, and which are just unintentionally so.

Aww bless.

"Greens the world over" in this case.

Couple of points here, firstly 'greens' do not represent a 'vast swathe of humanity', secondly you're an idiot.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Consider power demand. Demand is a lumpy thing. There are times of peak demand and times of slack demand. Power supply needs to be matched to power demand. Certain power supplies are inherently inflexible in their ability to provide power. Nukes are inflexible. They create a LOT of cheap power but are relatively fixed in their power output. Thus they do not flex but are only consdered as base load supply. The physics of the reactors and inherent long startup time (measured in days if not weeks) make this so. Peak demand (hot days when users are running lots of AC etc.) requires a dependable source that can be turned on at a moments notice. Thus gas turbines are ideal for this as their startup times are ideal. Much is being made of the applicability of renewables and their applicability but the dependability of their power output is always a big question mark therefor the peaking sources are still required to allow for high demand power generation on windless or cloudy days.

Likewise the load balancing plays a role in the transmission and distribution systems selling power from one grid to another but that goes into another subject and needlessly complicates the matter. From a power generation standpoint you want cheap base load generation (and if possible coerce peak load cosnumers to consume on off peak hours to maximize base load) and dependable peaking sources. Variable renewable sources are a wildcard that power generators use but don't necessairly count on.

[kentonio]

(X-Post)

Ogie referred to your assertion to go 100 % nuclear because that would not be flexible enough (baseload vs peak capacity). Nuclear power plants don't "react fast enough" to avoid instabilities and your power supply across the network could become instable with balckouts as a consequence. This baseload versus peak capacity.

Ah I understand his point now. Couldn't you just overproduce though or does that cause issues of its own? Or the renewables as the flexible top end?

[kentonio]

Consider power demand. Demand is a lumpy thing. There are times of peak demand and times of slack demand. Power supply needs to be matched to power demand. Certain power supplies are inherently inflexible in their ability to provide power. Nukes are inflexible. They create a LOT of cheap power but are relatively fixed in their power output. Thus they do not flex but are only consdered as base load supply. The physics of the reactors and inherent long startup time (measured in days if not weeks) make this so. Peak demand (hot days when users are running lots of AC etc.) requires a dependable source that can be turned on at a moments notice. Thus gas turbines are ideal for this as their startup times are ideal. Much is being made of the applicability of renewables and their applicability but the dependability of their power output is always a big question mark therefor the peaking sources are still required to allow for high demand power generation on windless or cloudy days.

Likewise the load balancing plays a role in the transmission and distribution systems selling power from one grid to another but that goes into another subject and needlessly complicates the matter. From a power generation standpoint you want cheap base load generation (and if possible coerce peak load cosnumers to consume on off peak hours to maximize base load) and dependable peaking sources. Variable renewable sources are a wildcard that power generators use but don't necessairly count on.

Thanks, that makes sense. So could you just go heavily into nuclear for the vast bulk of the supply and use gas for the peaking?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Of course and to the extent that politics allow, developed countries have done so. The exception being Germany who via cowardice decided in a fit of eco-ludditism to idle their nuclear fleet after Fukushima.

[kentonio]

Of course and to the extent that politics allow, developed countries have done so. The exception being Germany who via cowardice decided in a fit of eco-ludditism to idle their nuclear fleet after Fukushima.

But Wiki only shows 3 countries that produce more than 50% of their energy through nuclear, those being France, Belgium and Slovakia. I realize you said 'to the extent that politics allow' but isn't that just a sign of many countries showing foolishness/cowardice?

[dannubis]

Belgium will soon disappear from that list... thanks to our politicians...

Alternatives are not yet on the table, of course. ****ers !

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Short answer - Yes. OTOH I realisitically do not know the dynamics of the French, Belgium, and Slovakian energy grid markets. They may sell to and buy from suppliers in order to allow the flexibility they need.

[dannubis]

But Wiki only shows 3 countries that produce more than 50% of their energy through nuclear, those being France, Belgium and Slovakia. I realize you said 'to the extent that politics allow' but isn't that just a sign of many countries showing foolishness/cowardice?

You also have coal plants, hydro plants, lignite... a lot of stuff can be used for baseload.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Realisitically the decision to bring more power on is driven by the finanacial and risk modeling algorythms a utility uses to make large venture capital decisions. One of the largest unknowns is the role of governments on ability to use the nuclear assets. (Case in point Germany and Belgium). That aside, until recently the capital costs of nuclear facilities (at least here inthe US) were so overrun in the 80's following TMI and the regulations and lessons learned following that crisis, that nuclear became a nonoption for any new plants from the mid 80's until present day. (Many of the facilities were already in design and/or construction and had to be redesigned on the fly to comply with new TMI based regs. I think if I remember correctly almost 25% of the builds at the time were simply halted and never finished due to anticipated overruns.)

More recently new design and modular construction techniques have allowed a re-look at advanced light water reactors. China is coming online with an AP1000 (Design by Westinghouse) shortly and Vogtle Units 3 &4, SC will be the first new reactors (Also AP1000's) built in the US since the mid 80's.

Its not all about political will, it also is about return on capital (risk adjusted) which until recently was not in the favor of new nuke plants.

[Asher]

Alberta seems to be building wind farms and natural gas plants.

When the wind blows strong enough, they can wind down the turbines a bit to keep a consistent power flow.

I think it seems to make sense.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

As long as one runs their analysis and financial justifications on an asset that is utilized 50% (insert appropriate utilization figure here) of the time, sure.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hence why a good mix of power production is a good thing. You could still do the 100% nuclear, if it was hooked up, for example, to a transport grid run 100% on batteries (e.g. electric power) as those batteries could take up the surplus as they recharge.

I'm not saying it should be done that way, simply that it could be done...

Until such time as we go to a hydrogen fuel cell economy (whereby the excess energy could/would be used for hydrogen generation from water electrolysis) the idea of battery grid to take up the excess is infeasible simply from the size and number of the battery yards required for commerical energy production. (Not to mention the environmental impact of battery production and disposal of batteries after X recharge cycles) Many similar proposals already exist, turning electrical power back into Potential Energy for later use, I believe it is TVA that powers pumps to pump water uphill in slack times and then allows the hydropower to be generated upon need.

[BlackCat]

As for solar power, this is relatively inefficient in the latitudes of Germany. Germany is in effect inefficiently hogging the limited global PV production of the world, Germany is again therefore guilty of retarding the possible gains of saving on CO2 globally, if the PV cells were, say, set up in somewhere very hot and sunny instead...

Yes Greens do wield power in Germany. Either actually in government, or as a voter that will be less likely to not vote conservative now that they've classically pandered to the Green vote. Basically the conservatives choked like cowards worried that they'd be decimated in the polls if they didn't act with a kneejerk reaction to a kneejerk reaction.

Fun stuff- all this green tech is so hevaily subsidized for 20 years through the german EEG (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz) that people can't pay their power bills and are cut off the grid. German efficiency at it's best

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This. Afterall is said and done power generation comes down to bang for buck. You can argue the cost of fossil fuels does not represent externalities, but....