282
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

Growth in german wind capacity is slowing. Soo... then the plan is to keep on with lignite and gas? Am I missing something?

Installed Wind Capacty - Germany

German Wind Capacity

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] theherk@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 2 points 1 year ago

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 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 2 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.

[-] theherk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 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.

this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
282 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32289 readers
602 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS