kravietz 🦇 on Nostr: npub1qzzex…kn8ud Your comment one huge litany of fallacies. A single wind turbine ...
npub1qzzexkxqj4fxd76jk64r5a8a6m6u5jc3h0c5fdw5wgnpj9u3vjzqnkn8ud (npub1qzz…n8ud)
Your comment one huge litany of fallacies.
A single wind turbine requires less concrete than a single nuclear power plant. So far so good.
Except a typical nuclear power plant has capacity of 1000 MW, while a typical wind turbine — 1 MW.
Therefore, for the same capacity you need 1000 of wind turbines. And each of them is a huge steel tower anchored in ground with a massive foot made of reinforced concrete.
Therefore, per 1 MW of power wind power requires much more concrete than nuclear power. And much more land surface.
Then you mention "many times nukes had to be shut down". In reality, nuclear power plants are shut down once per a few years, for whatever reasons, refueling or maintenance.
Wind turbines are shut down most of the time. This is measured with capacity factor and for on-shore wind the best you can get is ~20%. That means for 80% of time, on average, wind towers are not producing any power. For solar it's even worse, as in the UK latitude typical capacity factor reaches 13%. For #nuclear power plants capacity factor routinely reaches 95%.
And because of that, countries with large share of wind and solar are required to also maintain a spare capacity in conventional electricity generation because of course they want electricity supply 24/7 rather than only during sunny, windy days.
Germany right now maintains 80 MW in wind and 80 MW in solar, but since these rarely work, it also has 60 MW in coal. In total, in 2022 coal was the largest single source of electricity in Germany, who presents itself as the leader in renewables. So much about your "better choices"...
adanvers@nerdculture.de
Your comment one huge litany of fallacies.
A single wind turbine requires less concrete than a single nuclear power plant. So far so good.
Except a typical nuclear power plant has capacity of 1000 MW, while a typical wind turbine — 1 MW.
Therefore, for the same capacity you need 1000 of wind turbines. And each of them is a huge steel tower anchored in ground with a massive foot made of reinforced concrete.
Therefore, per 1 MW of power wind power requires much more concrete than nuclear power. And much more land surface.
Then you mention "many times nukes had to be shut down". In reality, nuclear power plants are shut down once per a few years, for whatever reasons, refueling or maintenance.
Wind turbines are shut down most of the time. This is measured with capacity factor and for on-shore wind the best you can get is ~20%. That means for 80% of time, on average, wind towers are not producing any power. For solar it's even worse, as in the UK latitude typical capacity factor reaches 13%. For #nuclear power plants capacity factor routinely reaches 95%.
And because of that, countries with large share of wind and solar are required to also maintain a spare capacity in conventional electricity generation because of course they want electricity supply 24/7 rather than only during sunny, windy days.
Germany right now maintains 80 MW in wind and 80 MW in solar, but since these rarely work, it also has 60 MW in coal. In total, in 2022 coal was the largest single source of electricity in Germany, who presents itself as the leader in renewables. So much about your "better choices"...
adanvers@nerdculture.de