How are renewables more responsive to changes in demand? I don’t know how to make the sun shine brighter or the wind blow harder. That seems like one of the weakest points for the case. And how much much safer are they as a function of unit of power generated?

In any case the argument between renewables or nuclear baffles me. Both are, in my view at least, an improvement over our current primary fossil fuel power generation systems.

Edit: I mistyped fossil as fissile, which while funny undercut my sentiment.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By angling the wind turbine blades, rotating the turbines, pitching the rotors, using breaks, gearboxes, etc.

It doesn’t really matter how weak this point is, to be honest. It’s just a bonus. The ultimate trifecta of “renewables are cheaper, better for the environment and faster to build” mean that renewables always win.

They’re both an improvement over fossil fuels, sure, but one is clearly the superior choice and resources are limited. It’s very important that we push for the right choices to be made to reduce the impact of climate change as quickly and effectively as possible. It’s literally one of the most important issues facing our species.

Every $1 spent on nuclear power is basically stolen from renewables. $1 spent on renewables generates 150%-200% more power than nuclear and it does it safer and cheaper. Why invest in nuclear at all.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Also, happy to continue to peruse nuclear research and development, I agree that it’s worthwhile to try to improve the technology and to hope for breakthroughs in the field, I’m hopeful that nuclear fusion break-even and beyond can be achieved in my lifetime. But we need to take drastic action now to reduce fossil fuels and that means investing heavily in renewables asap.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I appreciate the apology but you’re still getting mixed up - I think we have a differing definitions of the word “responsive to demand”. You seem to have taken it as meaning, “we can scale up power generation when demand increases, and it’s dispatchable” which wasn’t what I meant - although I probably added to the confusion by improperly using the words “flexible”. I know that wind and solar PV aren’t dispatchable - solar thermal can be, same for solar electrochemical, but those are a bit oddball. For dispatchability, pumped storage really needs to be brought in to the picture, though I think hydrogen should be used much more for transport.

All I meant was that wind turbines are better at reducing electrical output and managing power grid frequency response than nuclear is, not that a given wind turbine is better at producing electricity at any given moment that we need more of it. I think that with scale and distributed power grids, the disadvantage of the variability of renewables becomes less of an issue anyways, but yeah, with all of the options available, there’s really no reason at the moment to increase the installed base of commercial nuclear power plants, and that’s all I really care about - reducing co2eq emissions as quickly and cheaply as possible. Whichever technology achieves that has my full throated support.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m no longer mixed up. I mistook your meaning. You’re just right. Thank you for clarifying and helping me understand.