If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.

Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.

You implicated that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.

If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.

If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going

So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.

capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here

The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.

how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?

Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.

But I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question:

Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?

A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources.

Well yes. Obviously. And they are rarely able to supply at full power. So that means you are going to have to fill the gaps. To have a functioning grid, you need stability. You can’t say, well it works 95% of the time, as good as it gets folks!

The graph underlines that NPPs can reliably un at maximum power almost all of the time. Not that they have to. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t get what that means.

lower capacity factor

Excuse me what? The capacity factor is about reliability, not flexibility. Why on earth would you want something that’s less reliable. You know you can’t tune the wind or sun, right?

Batteries are only one option here.

And nuclear is another. Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?

You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride.

Yeah I know what sodium is. I don’t need a mansplaination, thanks.

But if you honestly think all it takes to make a sodium ion battery is slapping some salt inside a container we need to start at a whole another level…

they can use existing infrastructure.

No they can’t. We need all of those and more to make Li-ion batteries to make the transition to EVs.

Your entire premise is based on wishful thinking. Let’s not base our entire future on wishful thinking. Instead, let’s diversify, and yes, that includes nuclear to get us through the winter.

Seems more like you’re in denial about the fact that 100% renewables with storage isn’t feasible.

First of all, you assumed wrong. But that doesn’t really matter. Sticking with your USA exampleI, it’s actually very likely that there will be moments throughout the year when there is not enough sun and wind to power the entire country. What about quiet winter days or even nights? And maybe there is some wind in California. Is your plan to place enough wind turbines there to power the rest of the country?

The problem is with reliability. You need power at all times, and not 95% of the time.

As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?

The point is, why wouldn’t you also use nuclear power? What makes it so bad that you want to ditch it? Even if it takes a decade or more to build. It’s a proven technology and extremely stable, much more so than solar or wind, which are not as reliable as you would make it seem.

How so?

That’s the whole point of diversifying, use the sources that are available in the places where they are available.

Yes, but they are more niche solutions rather than widely available.

which makes them carbon neutral.

Only in theory, and only with some crop types. And as with all agriculture, it takes up a lot of space. If we simply used that space to plant trees we wouldn’t have to release those GHGs into the atmosphere at all. And then there is the labour intensive process of sowing, watering, harvesting, processing and transportation that emits GHGs of its own.

give us a good idea of how it will evolve.

Yes, but small scale projects do not tell you how it scales to grids worldwide. Nor how it holds up after years, or when these batteries reach the end of their lifecycle. And it may be decades until we can make it on the scale that is necessary. We already know all this for NPPs.

We’re probably talking about the 2040s at that point.

Possibly, although SMR’s may be built quicker. The point is it’s not the same for a technology that still needs to be developed. They still need to be developed and then be produced and implemented. So that’s more like 2050s-2060s.

and at this point we have other alternatives that are cheaper and faster to install.

Yeah but the person above didn’t realize that these are not competing technologies. The NPP provides base load power, e.g. at night when the solar panels produce none. And solar panels provide peak load power during the day. They meet different demands, but the NPP is more stable and can also be turned up or down during the day depending on the weather.

NPPs are way more reliable than solar, so the current shutdown is big news just because it never happens. And when extreme droughts happen there will probably be lots of sun around.

I’m not saying we need one technology for the entire grid. Of course you diversify. That is out of the question.

But the solutions you mentioned aren’t ready yet.

Pumped hydro isn’t feasible everywhere, nor is geothermal and is wildly expensive. Biofuel burning emits greenhouse gases. Sodium ion batteries are a new technology and we don’t know how well it scales and we don’t have the production capacity. And the others aren’t proven technologies, so they may not be around for decades.

No, the point is that the anti-nuclear crowd is trying to make it seem like there is no role for nuclear energy in the future alongside renewable energy. They haven’t thought about baseload power and they think putting giant battery parks everywhere will be fast and easy, as well as —somehow— great for the environment.

Of course there are a lot of good ideas and I don’t think we should not explore them. But we need more than ideas. We need available solutions. And we need scalable solutions.

Base load is definitely a concern. We still need base load power for when there is no sun, i.e. every night and when there is little to no wind. And especially when there is neither of those (no wind at night).

NPP’s can provide that base load power. During winter, but also during the night. On top of that, it is already adaptable:

Nuclear can not provide that.

This is simply not true.

Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day.

Source

So, we can bet it all on unproven technologies that we don’t know the scalability of, or we can use a technology that has proven itself over decades, works on a large scale and is adaptable for baseload power and adaptable for when renewables aren’t available.

The anti-nuclear crowd still doesn’t have an answer for base load power when there is no wind or solar. What are you going to do, have massive back up batteries? For an entire electric grid? Of an entire country? And do that worldwide?

We can’t even mine lithium fast enough to make enough batteries for all the cars to switch to EV’s in the next decade.

There is more to consider than simple napkin math. There already isn’t enough lithium mining capacity on the planet to transfer the world to EVs and it is already not keeping up with demand. What do you think will happen if we want to provide back up power for entire countries with batteries? It’s not feasible.

Even comparing human deaths per unit of electricity, nuclear has a lower death count than wind and only slightly above solar, and that includes Chernobyl.

Solar panels have a lifespan of a decade or maybe two if you’re lucky, after which it becomes mostly e-waste. So there is more to consider than you would make it seem.

The NPP itself only emits water vapor

There are plenty of countries that have nuclear power plants but no nuclear warheads or intention to get them. Like Japan and many European nations.

Nuclear is costly, but its the only green form of electricity production that is both feasible everywhere and can provide baseload power. As of yet, an energy transition towards renewables does not seem feasible without it. On top of that, SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs.

A lot of people think the pain comes from the spine when it’s actually just the muscles that run along the spine. A common cause of lower back pain is weakened muscles in the lower back due to a sedentary lifestyle. That causes instability and a reduced ability to deal with stressors that normal muscles can usually deal with without issues.

So I’m guessing that that is the issue here, although I’m making some assumptions here about the average Lemmy user :)

American soldiers if they try to invade Greenland:

Congratulations!

No it isn’t

While I enjoy a good online slap fight, some people seem to get paid for it.

Ah, I was thinking more along the lines of emancipation

True, but they also have more options for birth control. And a family needs two working parents to have a children nowadays as well.