lemm.ee

1 point

1 year ago

Well I suppose there is a lot to unpack there but I want to hold to the one point. Renewables are absolutely in no way more responsive to demand. I’m not sure where you got that, but it seems clear you don’t even want to defend it when challenged.

It is in fact their Achilles heel, and regularly pointed out as the one reason why they are an incomplete solution requiring other solutions like batteries, or other storage and distribution.

Simply pitching blades cannot increase power in accordance with demand spikes. One would expect the current brake, blade pitch, and other controls to be set for current maximum generation capability given the current wind.

report

[ - ]

Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk

0 points

1 year ago

It’s easy to turn off wind turbines. It’s much harder to turn off nuclear reactors. That’s what responsive to demand means.

report

[ - ]

3 points

1 year ago

Without disputing any of your other points, you’re just dead wrong about this one. Look up dispatchability. Turbine driven power can go from zero to full multimegawatt power and back in very little time since we control the fuel. You cannot turn up the wind, nor the sun at night.

Nuclear power can be shut down very quickly, even more quickly in gen4. You have good points and you need not disrupt them by claiming renewables are good for demand response.

To clarify, I mean steam turbines but the same is true of wind turbines. Like you said, easy to disconnect them from generation. The difference is maximum power is limited by fuel rather than nature.

report

[ - ]

Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk

1 point

1 year ago

Again, I am talking about NUCLEAR VS. RENEWABLES. If you bring up fossil fuels once more I will just block you.

Nuclear power can be shut down very quickly

Provide a source of a nuclear power plant in operation which is capable of going from 100% to 0% in seconds.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Threatening to block somebody for challenging your statement? Okay. I didn’t bring up fossil fuel there. Nuclear power requires fuel too. And I didn’t claim a reactor could be powered down in seconds, but quickly. In any case, generation can go to zero even more quickly as just like a wind turbine a steam turbine can be disconnected from the generator.

The point is very simple though, nuclear can increase to full power when decided upon by plant operators. Renewable energy cannot; it can only increase to current maximum potential given natural conditions. I’m still pro renewable energy, I just don’t like misinformation.

report

[ - ]

Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk

1 point

1 year ago

No, a nuclear power plant turbine can’t just get disconnected and reconnected in seconds. Provide proof of your claim. The turbines are fucking huge and disengaging them is an extremely complex process that takes a lot of human intervention and a long time to do safely.

I assumed you were talking about combined cycle turbines because I hadn’t considered that someone would make such a wild claim about nuclear power, so I apologise for overestimating you.

Nuclear power plant energy output is controlled in a few ways - varying the amount of fissile material, varying the amount of control rods, adjusting coolant flow, and adjusting leakage. None of these processes can be safely performed quickly. Going by the most favourable estimates, modern reactors are able to respond at rates of around 0.3% to 2% per minute. So to go from 30% to 100% would take at least 45 minutes. Which is about 45 minutes slower than wind turbines.

I remind you that my original claim was that wind power output can be lowered faster than nuclear power plant’s output is. That was my claim. You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote, wilfully or ignorantly, and you accuse me of spreading misinformation. Yet you continue to post falsehood after falsehood, just a bunch of absolute propaganda. I see right through the bullshit astroturfing.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Again, I have not made any claim about seconds. I have nevertheless almost certainly misunderstood, and likely as a result of ignorance. I apologize; I’ve been to hasty. You’re clearly well spoken on the topic, and I appreciate your sentiments. I found it a bit surprising that one of you primary claims was typically the only significant downside presented about renewable sources. In that way, I happen to think your stated value of 45 minute transition is still faster than we can make the wind blow harder.

However, with further thought I suppose if you have enough renewable generation equipment to generate 100% demanded loaded even at minimum natural capacity, then you would indeed have a much better response to demand. I hadn’t thought of that before, but that is the dream and something for which we should strive.

I’m not actually sure the specific numbers for gen4 reactors, but I feel until none of the pie graph is fossil fuel, all research for improved generation methods is a worthy endeavor. I was a bit accusatory, but I don’t think I’m alone there. I didn’t mean to spread propaganda, and I don’t think you have either. What I meant was strictly that the information seemed incorrect. I’m probably wrong; I often am.

report