Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[wingnut771]

Only of all nuclear is run like Koeberg...

How else is nuclear run?

 

[wingnut771]

We south africans have normalized not having power regularly, thus his statement makes sense.

Nuclear is constant. If something goes faulty, it's months before it's back up again. Storage will not last months.

 

[Grubscrew]

Nuclear is constant. If something goes faulty, it's months before it's back up again. Storage will not last months.

Once again we are South African's, we only know what we know...

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

How else is nuclear run?

Efficiently...you know exactly what I mean here.

I'm not talking about the actual process...but the endless delays for re-fuelling and maintenance due to bad planning etc.

 

[Temujin]

An example of just how crazy and unhinged "climate cultists" are.
Some of them are right here in this very thread.

Reminds me of these brain surgeons shutting down the shipment of cooking oil to 'stop the drilling'

 

[1337]

Why would you need storage if you have nuclear?

Matching supply to dynamic demand. When there is no demand to fully util what you produce (I know having surplus energy is a foreign concept to us ZAffers) you need to put it somewhere...

Are you familiar with flywheels?

 

[wingnut771]

Efficiently...you know exactly what I mean here.

I'm not talking about the actual process...but the endless delays for re-fuelling and maintenance due to bad planning etc.

Yes, even when refuelling is done properly, it still takes weeks, making storage moot.

 

[1337]

Nuclear is constant. If something goes faulty, it's months before it's back up again. Storage will not last months.

When I say batteries I mean used daily for matching supply to demand as part of a holistic energy management effort. Not in instances where the grid is facing collapse.

 

[1337]

I focus on Cali because its what I know:

California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook

View real-time and historical data on generation resources, including renewables, currently on the system.

www.caiso.com

Even they utilise batteries to store excess supply, which is then used in periods of high demand

 

[wingnut771]

When I say batteries I mean used daily for matching supply to demand as part of a holistic energy management effort. Not in instances where the grid is facing collapse.

I still think this is the best way to store energy:

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Yes, even when refuelling is done properly, it still takes weeks, making storage moot.

I think you made a literal connection between my more flippant post...and the issue of storage.

 

[1337]

Its not HUGE, but batteries are only one part of the system.

A fantastic example on a very special day last month:

 

[1337]

I still think this is the best way to store energy:

Giving this a watch, thanks!

 

[konfab]

You are correct, but that is not quite the point. We were not discussing the efficiency of nuclear energy.

The USA alone produces 2 000 metric tons of the stuff per year and is currently sitting on 85 000 metric tons of it stockpiled.

And this stuff must be safely stored for thousands of years and that is extremely difficult, due to the human factor.

But I still believe it is the only really viable clean way forward for maintain the required levels of energy required.

There is no other energy source that produces as little waste as nuclear energy.

Right let me do the calculations:
US produces 94.7 GW of energy via nuclear power. According to you that is 2000 tons of waste every year.
https://world-nuclear.org/informati...ar generated 5.3,of these have been cancelled.

1GW of energy requires about 3.125 million (320W) solar panels (and we are not even talking about storage). So to replace the US nuclear fleet with solar panels would need 296 million solar panels. Each panel weights about 22kg. So that is a cool 5918 million kg of solar panels that need to be replaced every 25 years. So assuming that they are gradually installed and replaced as needed, you can roughly divide that number by 25. Which leaves you with 236.75 million kg or 236 750 metric tonnes of waste you have to deal with every year. So nuclear power is about 2 orders of magnitude more efficient.
And none of this is concerning storage, which will only make the situation worse for solar.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/article...~:text=3.125 Million Photovoltaic (PV) Panels

The waste side of things is a solved engineering problem for nuclear.

 

[B-1]

Why would you need storage if you have nuclear?

Peak demand offset would be a good guess. I don't believe nuclear power stations like ramping up and down. So batteries, hydro, angular momentum etc can be used for sudden peaks.

 

[konfab]

I still think this is the best way to store energy:

I nearly had an aneurysm when they said that no heat is generated when they compress air because they do it "slowly".

Just in general, mechanical storage is garbage for energy storage. Dams only work because they are so big that inefficiency doesn't matter. You don't get that with a bunch of tanks underground
Losses are very high . Do you see the mountains in the background of the video? It would be much cheaper just to pump the water up into a dam.

The only grid level storage I have seen that would actually be viable are iron flow batteries.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

There is no other energy source that produces as little waste as nuclear energy.

We all know that and agree...not sure why you keep harping on it?

The waste side of things is a solved engineering problem for nuclear.

It is? Not quite....

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

I nearly had an aneurysm when they said that no heat is generated when they compress air because they do it "slowly".

Just in general, mechanical storage is garbage for energy storage. Dams only work because they are so big that inefficiency doesn't matter. You don't get that with a bunch of tanks underground
Losses are very high . Do you see the mountains in the background of the video? It would be much cheaper just to pump the water up into a dam.

The only grid level storage I have seen that would actually be viable are iron flow batteries.

That was my first though too...that small amount of water will be so quickly depleted when used to flow over a turbine, it would probably not be very effective on that small scale.

 

[1337]

It is? Not quite....

?

You can store the waste in a place where nobody will ever (probably) go, no?
The waste is minimal (in terms of volume) compared to coal

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

There is no other energy source that produces as little waste as nuclear energy.

Right let me do the calculations:
US produces 94.7 GW of energy via nuclear power. According to you that is 2000 tons of waste every year.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx#:~:text=In 2021, nuclear generated 5.3,of these have been cancelled.

1GW of energy requires about 3.125 million (320W) solar panels (and we are not even talking about storage). So to replace the US nuclear fleet with solar panels would need 296 million solar panels. Each panel weights about 22kg. So that is a cool 5918 million kg of solar panels that need to be replaced every 25 years. So assuming that they are gradually installed and replaced as needed, you can roughly divide that number by 25. Which leaves you with 236.75 million kg or 236 750 metric tonnes of waste you have to deal with every year. So nuclear power is about 2 orders of magnitude more efficient.
And none of this is concerning storage, which will only make the situation worse for solar.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-much-power-1-gigawatt#:~:text=3.125 Million Photovoltaic (PV) Panels

The waste side of things is a solved engineering problem for nuclear.

Te re-iterate...we actually agree here. I also mentioned the massive waste of solar in my first post on the matter.

And I have already said a few time nuclear is the most efficient and only way to go.

But the store nuclear waste safely over millennia, is still a real and major challenge. That cannot be explained away with efficiency math.