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 ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) 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
[โ€“] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

@Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Nuclear does not avoid the need for short-term storage to cover the peaks, unless you can build vast amounts of it (equal to peak).

Nuclear *does* avoid the need for long-term storage, if you can build enough of it (equal to average).

[โ€“] Ardubal@mastodon.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

You seem to argue that our /current/ fossil grid would also need more storage, but it works just fine as is. Nuclear is better at load following than fossils, so what gives?

[โ€“] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis The fossil fuel grid we had 20 years ago relied on gas peak plants and hydro for peaks.

Nowadays we have diesel farms (eeek!), and increasingly (thankfully!) batteries.

The actual UK grid today is only 45% fossil fuel (and some nations and states are better than that). We also have more interconnectors than we had in the past.

UK nuclear has generally been used as baseload for many decades.

[โ€“] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Sadly it is much easier to build an extra 10GW of peak gas plant than it is to build an extra 10GW of nuclear plant. The tradeoff is of course that the gas plant is inefficient and therefore extremely expensive per unit generated (but not used very often). Not to mention destroying the planet.

But that is how we largely managed it in the past.

In the future, and even the present, fortunately we have better options.