Post AcUaZ2om0FOzGPLRA0 by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
 (DIR) More posts by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
 (DIR) Post #AcSvw0SucqAJLgzReC by mzedp@mas.to
       2023-12-02T11:03:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Nuclear took 20 years to reach  200GW, at a huge cost, causing several terrible accidents and producing a toxic waste that needs to be guarded for thousands of years.Wind and solar reached 200GW in half the time for a fraction of the cost and without significant incidents.
       
 (DIR) Post #AcSvw1WqfguMeBq6QC by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
       2023-12-04T12:22:33.902513Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @mzedp You seem to be completely unaware of the concept of capacity factor which makes your conclusion completely missing the pointhttps://agora.echelon.pl/notice/AcSvdkyZ6P42M9fJFA
       
 (DIR) Post #AcSvw2YIrlfLozWmKO by mzedp@mas.to
       2023-12-02T17:08:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Do smaller nuclear reactors get built faster?No.If small reactors worked Russia would be littered with them.
       
 (DIR) Post #AcSvw4aVIYcA8OZZ2G by mzedp@mas.to
       2023-12-02T17:22:19Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Do newer nuclear reactors get built faster?Also no.
       
 (DIR) Post #AcSvw6chjLYyRncLk8 by mzedp@mas.to
       2023-12-02T17:34:40Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       But are they getting cheaper?Also no.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106?via%3Dihub
       
 (DIR) Post #AcT06w5bdQWomNYWAq by mzedp@mas.to
       2023-12-04T12:41:58Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kravietz lol.https://mas.to/@mzedp/111521736595090256https://mas.to/@mzedp/111515669076649373
       
 (DIR) Post #AcT06xxWgRFmZtn5rE by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
       2023-12-04T13:10:19.376092Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @mzedp You are happily “applying 40% to wind” while completely ignoring that it only works when averaged over the year (and it’s highly inflated, 40% is max for off-shore). For example, right now in Germany wind output is 23% and solar is stunning 2%, so the whole country runs on gas and coal:https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DECountries don’t want to have electricity supply averaged over the year, they want 24/7 electricity, which is why you can’t directly compare dispatchable (nuclear) capacity with variable (wind, solar). Want a fair comparison, compare wind+storage or PV+storage. Where storage can be pumped hydro or batteries, but the capacity of both is rather miserable globally and of course you don’t display it in your graph :)
       
 (DIR) Post #AcTA0WK9W43SfowIOu by mzedp@mas.to
       2023-12-04T14:56:07Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kravietz You're right, a 40% capacity factor for wind is too high. But it doesn't matter. Energy storage will cover the night and low wind hours. Is nuclear dispatchable? As I understand it, its so expensive that the only way to keep it profitable is to run it at full capacity continuously. Not exactly the poster boy of flexibility.
       
 (DIR) Post #AcTA0X7mXXkn9k9vl2 by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
       2023-12-04T15:01:15.605044Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @mzedp Energy storage will cover the night and low wind hours. Can we talk about energy policy without  future tense statements used as a discussion-ending argument with confidence that is not at slightest justified by past experience? 🤔I have already linked my analysis of 2011 Energiewende mistakes but I will do it again with a quote:The Ethics Committee is firmly convinced that the phase-out of nuclear  energy can be completed within a decade by means of the energy transition measures presented here.They wrote it with “firm” confidence back in 2011. It’s now 2023 and Germany is running mostly on coal and gas.I very much recommend the whole article as it’s a very teaching study of what overconfidence in these “will” statements did to Germany:https://write.as/arcadian/ideological-origins-of-energiewende
       
 (DIR) Post #AcUaZ2om0FOzGPLRA0 by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
       2023-12-05T07:33:30.498460Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @riedlerThe latter is determined by EROEI (energy return on energy investment) and in case of most renewables it's positive, meaning you save more CO2 than you spent. One challenge is that this metric for renewables is very sensitive to geography, so there's no single "EROEI of PV", it will be different in each location, and massively different between the north and equator, so the more north you install the panels, the more chances they will never pay back the energy invested.One factor that nobody is talking about however is that renewables by their nature use vast amounts of one  resource that is nonrenewable: the land surface.@mzedp