this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
89 points (97.8% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ardubal@mastodon.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@MattMastodon @matthewtoad43 @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Sorry to interrupt, but nothing about this is Β»trivialΒ«.

Also, you must compare the complete system. Let's summarize just two options:

- Nuclear power plants, and the grid as is.
- Wind turbines, solar panels, plus a multiple of the current grid, plus hypothetical storage tech none of which has passed the pilot stage yet.

What is your bet? How do you think decarbonization has /already/ been achieved?

[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Short term storage already exists. So does wind, solar, at considerable (though inadequate) scale, and cheap (bottlenecked mainly by grid connection). Dynamic demand exists to some degree and so do interconnectors.

Lithium batteries exist at reasonable scale in other countries, notably 2.5GW on California's grid. There are active trials of V2G but IMHO reasons to doubt how big a contribution it will be. Reusing EV batteries as grid storage exists at a small scale.

Nuclear power plants take forever to build, in recent experience in the UK. Even National Grid doesn't believe the government's promised 24GW of nuclear will be done for 2050.

There are uncertainties whichever way you go. So we need several strategies. However, it's worth pursuing iron-air batteries and possibly hydrogen as well as nuclear. But arguably they are only needed for the last few percent anyway. And I will *not* accept any attempt to slow down installation of renewables in favour of nuclear.

Decarbonisation, in terms of electricity in the UK, has been achieved through both nuclear and renewables. Fossil fuels are down to 40% of total units generated.

Figures for the last year in the UK:
Source GW Percent
Coal 0.32 1.1
Gas 11.30 38.3
Solar 1.38 4.7
Wind 8.82 29.9
Hydroelectric 0.34 1.2
Nuclear 4.44 15.0
Biomass 1.49 5.0

Unfortunately nuclear plants are closing rather rapidly, and it will be some time before replacements are online.

PS IIRC there are plausible sources saying that you only need renewables equal to ~3x plus short term storage. Both aspects of this are technically feasible and proven today. But obviously it means more rare earths etc. More nuclear, or more long term storage, or more interconnectors etc, reduce the cost.

[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis So no, nuclear is not the only proven option by a long way. Nor is it a feasible option on its own IMHO. And new designs increase risk and time. Building multiple reactors to the same design saves time and money, of course.

Nuclear is an option. It probably isn't enough on its own any more than any of the other options are. There is absolutely no reason to stop building renewables, and slowly scaling up various storage options, today.

[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Also on the timescale: Labour have officially said they would reach 100% clean electricity by 2030, starting in 2025. That's generally seen as challenging, but it may well be possible (albeit at a high cost in lithium and rare earths). There's no way it can be done with nuclear. In any case we need to move fast; most of the rest of the transition depends on clean electricity. My main objection to nuclear is simply that it will take another 20 years to get maybe 3 more reactors if we're very lucky.

[–] Ardubal@mastodon.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

I'm not saying 100% nuclear would be best, but I /know/ that 100% volatiles + storage + transmission are practically impossible.

Up to around 40% volatiles can be compensated by a large grid. The rest can, with current or near-future technology, be nuclear and/or hydro. With middle-future technology, this /might/ be gradually replaced by more volatiles+storage+transmission.