this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
1342 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59629 readers
2895 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"with wind the single-biggest contributor.... Power production costs have declined “by almost half” .... And the clean energy sector has created 50,000 new jobs.... Ask me what was the impact on the electricity sector in Uruguay after this tragic war in Europe — zero."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This aspect is a big aspect of intermittent renewables energy that is often dismissed: you need piloted energy as a backup, the amount of piloted energy depend on how oversized is the intermittent energy installation.

For renewable piloted energy there is two options that I know of: hydro and biomass. Uruguay is using both.

It's something to keep in mind if we want to reach 100% renewables without nuclear, we need to increase the biomass electricity production.

On another hand we are already using a lot of biomass to produce ethanol and biodiesel. A lot of land is also use for animal feed, so I'm a society with less ICE cars and less meat eated we might have enough land to grow biomass for electricity generation.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, but I'm wondering how Uruguay is planning to go from a "might" to a "definitely" enough biomass production

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have no idea but I'm really interested to find out.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Actually one comment of many here set me on the right track! I'll reply again when I find out!

Gotta get to the airport now tho, laters!

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Biomass as a source of energy has a lot of the same problems as fossil fuels, no? Why is nuclear not on the table while biomass is?

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear does not have the same function than biomass.

A biomass power station is (relatively) cheap to build but the fuel is expensive. So it make sense to have it as a backup and only use it when necessary.

On the other hand nuclear is expensive to build but the fuel is cheap. So building a nuclear power station as a backup does not make sense, it needs to run all the time.

This is the basic ideas, but in practice nuclear is actually beneficial to renewables. The electricity network operator did several scenarios for the French electrical production in 2050. In their scenarios, having around 13% of nuclear in the mix divided by almost two the amount of solar, wind turbines and batteries needed.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

But nuclear is scalable while running, allowing you to ramp up and down as needed to cover for the intermittent nature of renewables without relying on fossil fuels or similar. Isn't that why adding nuclear into the mix is such an effective strategy?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Well then it's a good thing that's United States produces 20 to 25% of its electricity through nuclear power generation. It would be a good idea to maintain that.