Get those construction contacts signed!

  • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, renewables cannot do it alone and I wish that wasn’t the case. Pairing renewables with emission free nuclear is the only option we really have to meet current and future demands without fossil fuels.

    Google search found some uranium in England: https://www.nature.com/articles/246180a0.pdf

      • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Storage? Like battery storage? Lead? Lithium? Go on, tell me more.

        Or will we flood river valleys? What are you thinking?

          • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I took graduate level courses in storage with these technologies at scale. Neat that this knowledge is useful again.

            Pumped and compressed require specific geologic formations. Most of the sites for pumped have already been developed in NA. There’s room for growth for compressed, but compressed also suffers from losses when the air that’s pumped into the crust cools. Hopefully, there are undeveloped compressed sites near regions with energy demands.

            Flywheels are a neat idea and still just that: an idea. It’s yet to been demonstrated they can reliably do more than grid frequency moderation. The reason it’s not very attractive to investors is that we don’t have materials to match the energy density of other technologies.

            Green hydrogen is also just an idea at the present. Nobody’s pursues this because of losses incurred generating hydrogen from water. I want this one to work!

            Finally, batteries. Do you think there are enough metals on the planet to build enough batteries for current and future demand?

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is your contention that a combination of all the methods I listed is insufficient for a renewable future that doesn’t include nuclear?

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not. We HAVE to have baseline power generation. Today that comes by either burning fossil fuels, or nuclear, with hydro/geo etc making up a trivial percentage. Only oil industry propaganda conflates nuclear with solar/wind.

              • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, nuclear is the only one that’s sufficiently developed, with a supply chain that’s sufficiently developed, that’s ready for deployment right now.

                The others could get there some day, and I hope they do, but we cannot wait for that.

                • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You have it backwards. Each new nuclear plant is essentially bespoke, that’s why they cost so much. It’s wind and solar that have an established supply chain.

                  • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think we’re misunderstanding. Nukes, like wind and solar, are made out of concrete and steel which have developed supply chains. It’s the storage part that is not developed for renewables.

    • grahamsz@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can definitely achieve more if you can work the supply-side as well. In theory if the smart grid were well executed then it’d be possible for consumers to modulate their heat, charging, tumble dryers etc… to provide more elasticity.

      Unfortunately in a lot of places the incentives aren’t that high. I don’t have that option where I live, but in denver the lowest consumer rate is around 7c and the highest around 17c/kWh. It’s hard to invest in new appliances to exploit that difference, but if the off-peak number were 1c then I think you’d see much more take-up of smart car chargers and people delaying when they do laundry.

      • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So how does modulation work? Does the smart grid turn off dryers until midnight? Does the dryer have to be compatible with the drig? I’ve never heard of this and am interested.

        • grahamsz@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, you can get electric car chargers where you can set rules something like “Charge whenever power is under 5c/kWh, but try to make sure i’ve 60% charge by 8am each weekday”. Logically you could have a thermostat control AC - we’ve been playing with that at work because our power goes up at 1pm, so we turn down the thermostat at 12:00 and then turn it up at 1:00 so it shunts some of the cooling a little earlier.

          I’ve never seen a tumble drier that can do it, for some reason mine has WiFi but can’t do shit like that. But, yeah I imagine the rule I’d want would be : Dry this anytime in the next 4 hours, and try to spend as little as possible.