this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
663 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59008 readers
4533 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ok, you've added more solar panels and wind turbines.

It's nighttime. There isn't much wind. An extremely common thing to happen I'm sure you'll agree.

There now isn't enough power, places have constant blackouts, electricity prices skyrocket because demand far outstrips supply.

Grid storage large enough to replace fossil fuels + nuclear is far, far, far, far further than 10 years off.

I'll ask again:

  • Nuclear base load that assists renewables

  • Continued fossil fuels for multiple decades that assists renewables, and hope that we can reverse some of the damage done in the meantime through some kind of carbon capture tech (unfortunately we can't fix respiratory issues, strokes, and dead/extinct animals and plants after the fact).

  • Regular blackouts, energy rationing, but 100% renewable

What do you choose? Saying that you'll magic up some batteries in a capacity that currently isn't possible isn't an answer.

I want 100% renewables too. Anybody with any sanity would. But it's currently not feasible. Our choice is between having a fossil fuel base load or a nuclear base load. Other options aren't available yet.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

And here’s the magic choice …… “time of use metering”. As we electrify everything and add “smart” controls, we can be much more dynamic with time of use metering to adjust the load.

When the sun doesn’t shine at night, already has much lower electrical load than daytime. Early analog efforts at time of use metering tried to shift more load to the night so “base load” wouldn’t have to adjust, and max load wouldn’t be as high

Now we can develop smart time of use metering to shift more load to “when the sun shines”. I’m not aware of anything to quantify this so let me just make shit up: if the load “when the sun doesn’t shine” is half what it is when solar is producing, that’s a crap load of grid storage or base load that magically never has to exist

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

That is not a solution. People still need to use electricity at night, and if pretty much all power comes from wind and solar, you're really reliant on there being wind, and wind in the right direction.

Energy tariffs that encourage/discourage energy use at certain times is helpful, but it's very far from a silver bullet.

  • Renewables + nuclear

  • Renewables + fossil fuels

  • Renewables + frequent blackouts

The above is all we can achieve in the short-medium term. I know what I'd pick.

The third option wouldn't even work, practically speaking. Any political party that instigates that would not be getting re-elected anytime soon.

So for all practical purposes there's only two options. And I would prefer nuclear over choosing to continue pumping out greenhouse gases and other particulate matter.