this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
691 points (86.4% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
3569 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
691
Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)
submitted 21 hours ago by MataVatnik to c/[email protected]
216 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

As long as you don't care when the electricity is produced

[–] marx2k 0 points 27 minutes ago

Nuclear: As long as you don't care about the magic rocks once the magic has decayed to a level where they're not boiling water anymore

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Storage is a solvable problem. Whereas we don't have the resources to power the world with nuclear plants.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Storage is a solvable problem

I'm not convinced it is. Storage technologies exist for sure, but the general public seems to grossly underestimate the scale of storage required to match grid demand and renewables only production.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I think you underestimate how much storage power is currently being build and how many different technologies are available. In Germany alone there currently are 61 projects planed and in the approval phase boasting a combined 180 Gigawatts of potential power until 2030. Those of them that are meant to be build at old nuclear power plants (the grid connection is already available there) are expected to deliver 25% of the necessary storage capacity. In addition all electric vehicles that are assumed to be on the road until 2030 add another potential 100GW of power.

Of course these numbers are theoretical as not every EV will be connected to a bidirectional charger and surely some projects will fail or delay, however given the massive development in this sector and new, innovative tech (not just batteries but f.e. a concrete ball placed 800m below sea level, expected to store energy extremely well at 5.8ct / kilowatt) there's very much reason for optimism here.

It's also a funny sidenote that France, a country with a strong nuclear strategy, frequently buys power from Germany because it's so much cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Another important note about France: They are the second country alongside Germany heavily pushing for an upscaled green hydrogen market in the EU. Because -just like renewables- nuclear production doesn't match the demand pattern at all. Thus it's completely uneconomical without long-term storage.

The fact that we seem to constantly discuss nuclear vs. renewables is proof that it's mostly lobbying bullshit. Because in reality they don't compete. It's either renewables+short-term storage+long-term-term storage or renewables+nuclear+long-term storage. Those are the only two viable models.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

upscaled green hydrogen market

That's been the talk in town for 40 years now. Green hydrogen has never gotten beyond proof-of-concept.

The fact that we seem to constantly discuss nuclear vs. renewables is proof that it's mostly lobbying bullshit.

Sadly, it's because the political green parties available to me are anti-nuclear.

It's either renewables+short-term storage+long-term-term storage or renewables+nuclear+long-term storage.

Why is nuclear+short term storage not an option, according to you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Why is nuclear+short term storage not an option

Because cold winter days exist. Yes you can only build nuclear capacities for the average day and then short-term storage to match the demand pattern. But you would need to do so for the day(s) of the year with the highest energy demand, some cold winter work day. What do you do with those capacities the remaining year as throttling nuclear down is not really saving much costs (most lie in construction and deconstruction)?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

It's not just power that's needed (MW), also stored energy (MWh).

Germany consumes on average 1.4TWh of electricity a day (1). Imagine bridging even a short dunkelflaute of 2 days.

Worldwide lithium ion battery production is 4TWh a year (2).

It's also a funny sidenote that France, a country with a strong nuclear strategy, frequently buys power from Germany because it's so much cheaper.

Isn't that normal? The problems with renewables isn't that they generate cheap power, when they are generating. Today windmills even need to be equipped with remote shutdown, to prevent overproduction.

The problems arise when they aren't generating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Another problem arises when you're generation 63.688 after today and still have to keep maintaining deadly waste from nations that don't exist anymore, because they produced "cheap" and "clean" energy for a couple of decades.
Come on, Jesus died like 2000 years ago, this stuff will haunt us for centuries. Arguing in favor of nuclear energy is just selfish and shortsighted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Your estimation goes way off because you still believe lithium ion to be the only viable solution. By now Sodium-Ion batteries are already installed even in EVs and can be produced without any critical resource like lithium.

And then of course there are all the other storage solution. Like I said, there even are storage solutions like concrete balls. Successfully tested in 2016, here an article from 2013.

By now it wouldn't be wise to stifle this enormous emerging market of various technologies by using expensive, problematic technology (not just because the biggest producer of fuel rods is Russia).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

The watthours is what gas is for. Germany's pipeline network alone, that's not including actual gas storage sites, can store three months of total energy usage.

...or at least that's the original plan, devised some 20 years ago, Fraunhofer worked it all out back then. It might be the case that banks of sodium batteries or whatnot are cheaper, but yeah lithium is probably not going to be it. Lithium's strength is energy density, both per volume and by weight, and neither is of concern for grid storage.

Imagine bridging even a short dunkelflaute of 2 days.

That's physically impossible for a place the size of Germany, much less Europe.