Mihies @ Mihies @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

365

Joined

1 yr. ago

EVs provides more than 24 hours of needed energy in an area

Only if it was fully charged, you don't drive with it and you live in a house. And thus are not a reliable energy source at all, even less for general energy problems.

H2 technologies are advancing, including storage and pipes.

All technology is All technologies are advancing, but do you have a solution today? And even with advancements, you'll hardly solve H2 flammability. Even keeping it contained is problematic.

Yes, something like that. Now, while you can theoretically install that many solar panels, the kicker is that you don't have nowhere enough storage. And even if you had that 10%, you could increase solar all you want, but the nuclear would be still running at 90MW because of the storage, or better, the lack of it. And because you would have a surplus of cheap solar power energy during the day - assuming more solar panels than 10%, it would erode more expensive nuclear one to become even more expensive. Basically if we solve storage, we can get rid of nuclear, but not before.

You mean like Rutte? 🙃

I'm seeing that this is the case with all the reporters in the White House - when the Orange insults them like that, they are just silent. Including insulted ones. 🤷

If you trade too much EV energy during night, then you can't drive during the day. And again, EVs capacity is not reliable at all. As per green H2, please show me a production and a storage capable of providing energy to a city. Or at least a real project that's building it. Storing H2 is a big problem, like a huge one. If nothing else, Hindenburg tells a story. The fact that energy loss is at more than 50% when producing green H2 is a minor problem compared to storage.

And that's your reach apparently - insulting people without anything to contribute whatsoever.

EVs are rare (in the context of total energy consumption, even more so because not so many models offer this feature), limited to houses (what do you do when you live in a flat?) and not a reliable source - "honey, I need to drive fetch some groceries, you won't have energy in meantime". How many houses with only EVs as energy storage are disconnected from grid? I bet the number is next to 0. OTOH EVs as energy storage can provide buffering to energy grid when properly connected. This feature has its place, but they can't be used for reliable storage.

Las Vegas has already achieved 97% storage supply for its needs - a city that barely sleeps at night.

Hard data is where? And I bet LV heavily relies on hydro and gas powerplants. Solar is a tiny fraction, even though, where is its energy stored?

Again, where is your evidence that it is not going to improve across the board, and will all fail?

Instead of trying to pick a fight, please read what I write: "Perhaps somewhen in the not so near future, but today?"

And it’s an especially ironic answer given that it takes up to 20 years to commission a nuclear power plant. And they are down for scheduled maintenance for up to a month a year, etc.

The difference with nuclear power plants is that we have the technology today. Can you say the same for batteries? Also you'd build a surplus of nuclear energy power plants (or have another backup plan) just for cases like you mention. The maintenance frequency varies, i.e. for a Slovene one is once per 18 months. But that's something you know in advance and one plans for.

What batteries are you referring to? Do you realize the amount of energy those batteries would have to store? Perhaps somewhen in the not so near future, but today? Go ahead and show me a western city able to store a couple of days worth of energy. More realistically a week.

The question is simple. If you have installed solar power of 40% your country peak use, how much nuclear power you need - assuming simplified you have only these two power sources.

You can't just switch it off and on. It runs at more or less full power all the time. So tell me, at what power is that taking into consideration that sun doesn't shine during night + mornings and evenings when days are short or cloudy?

C'mon, this is getting childish. No, I don't have headphones while driving, I have an audio input to the car's stereo.

Yes, of course I've meant it in a positive way - a way to replace coal and gas. But solar is not just positive, they are problematic when you couple them with nuclear for the simple reasons that solar is not reliable and you can't throttle nuclear - they are like big ships, they require a lot of time to steer. Furthermore solar energy low price causes problems for nuclear higher prices. Which wouldn't be a problem if solar was reliable and continuous (long winter nights much?). But it's not, but you still need a reliable energy source. And so on. The pro solar panel crowd don't understand many of these implications and go with simple "idiotic" and downvotes.

One example - I charge it when using it for navigation in the car while at the same time listening to music.

What about the price is simultaneous charging?

In addition to @timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works: I don't need pairing, I don't have to deal with bad reception, it's harder to loose wired ones and even if I loose them, new ones cost a fraction of bt ones. Also I still have some wired ones. The simplicity of simply plugging them in and it just works is something really abstract to alternatives.

Do explain, I'm all ears.

Why not both

Yep, solar is awesome when you have coal and gas power plants, not so much when you have nuclear ones.

What about the simplicity?