Ardubal

@Emil I think you shouldn't auto-boost every reply.

@kuna I like the irony of it being a webp.

@FarraigePlaisteach @Emil @flossdaily @MotoAsh That is not an explanation, it is an assortment of claims without any attempt to prove them.

The DIW is a pseudo-scientific institution giving out PhDs for anti-nuclear propaganda.

If there are only non-technical, non-engineering obstacles for a solution, then it is our task to remove them, not throw up our hands in fatalism.

@qyron @Emil

To qualify that »none(*)«:

- Nuclear power /is/ sustainable, but I guess you don't mean that

- Physical resources demand (i. e. material) is significantly lower for nuclear power than for e. g. solar or wind plus storage

- Solar and wind often have no output; then you need to get 100% of live demand from other sources, such as storage or backup plants. Batteries don't exist at that scale at all (there is some hope that they might get there in 10 to 20 years, but still R&D).

@qyron @Emil

- No. France temporarily reduced some outputs to go easy on water temperatures according to regulations. This affected 0.05% of their annual output (one twentieth of a percent).

- Current median is 7 years (see image), running it is very cheap (most of the costs are in building it), for disposal look at Finland (it's not a real challenge)

- Currently none(*) without fossil backup of the same capacity, unless you have place for pumped hydro (also of the same capacity).

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

I think you do not realize how much of our population only exists because of Haber and Bosch.

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

Sorry, but the term »degrowth« is a red flag for me.

Sure, we are getting more efficient over time. That's why even Germany's emissions fell over the last two decades.

But cutting power that is actually needed means poverty, and that will immediately end support for long-term thinking as well as severely limit our technical options.

There are too many people for romantic visions of rural self-sufficiency.

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

Yes, but I'd like to add that we need to think about lifetimes.

Let's imagine having built all we need in 30 years, through sometimes extreme efforts.

Current solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries have a lifetime of (a bit generously) 30 years. So we'd have to immediately start again with the entire effort just to keep it up. I'm worrying that this might not be … sustainable.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants

For a grid of 100 GW peak demand, you either need

- 100 GW nuclear plants, or

- 100 GW storage output, plus (100 GW × storage loss factor) storage input (volatiles or whatever), plus additional transmission capabilities, or

- a combination of 60% nuclear plus, say 10% hydro, plus 30% volatiles

I'd say some variation on the last looks most plausible to me.

@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?

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

Nuclear is faster at load following than everything but pumped hydro and (very dirty) gas peakers. It was even a design requirement for the german Konvoi type in the 70s and 80s.

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

If you don't have power output from storage equal to *PEAK* demand, it's the same argument for any storage. And storage doesn't /produce/ energy, it /consumes/ it (because of conversion losses, which are significant).