this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
228 points (80.3% liked)
memes
22450 readers
3300 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The anti-nuclear crowd still doesn’t have an answer for base load power when there is no wind or solar. What are you going to do, have massive back up batteries? For an entire electric grid? Of an entire country? And do that worldwide?
We can’t even mine lithium fast enough or make enough batteries for all the cars to switch to EV’s in the next decade.
Edit: as usual, the downvote bandwagon has nothing of value to add. I’m open to viable alternatives, but I haven’t heard any yet.
I'm assuming you're from the USA.
You already mentioned an electric grid for an entire country and that's a solution right in front of you. It is very very very unlikely that no sun will shine and no wind will blow in your entire country at the same time.
You don't really need base load power as much as nuclear proponents think you would. If you have a large enough, functioning grid, with well distributed renewable energy generation, these fluctuations can be compensated for.
Of course, batteries can help and make things easier. But you don't even need to mine lithium for these anymore. Sodium batteries are already being used and that is an abundant resource. They have lower energy denity than lithium-batteries, which makes them less suitable for electric cars, but that's not really a big issue for grid storage batteries. Also you don't need centralized massive battery plants, a decentralized system with smaller battery stations can work just as well, if not better. So, backup batteries for an entire counry aren't even as inconceivable as you may think.
And that's all technology that's already being used and doesn't need a decade of planning to get a single powerplant up and running.
First of all, you assumed wrong. But that doesn’t really matter. Sticking with your USA example, it’s actually very likely that there will be moments throughout the year when there is not enough sun and wind to power the entire country. What about quiet winter days or even nights? And maybe there is some wind in California. Is your plan to place enough wind turbines there to power the rest of the country?
The problem is with reliability. You need power at all times, and not 95% of the time.
As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?
The point is, why wouldn’t you also use nuclear power? What makes it so bad that you want to ditch it? Even if it takes a decade or more to build. It’s a proven technology and extremely stable, much more so than solar or wind, which are not as reliable as you would make it seem.
I don't think that graphic shows what you're trying to say. Or is at least a very bad choice to support your argument. A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources. Nobody's denying that.
I don't even want to avoid nuclear like the plague or anything, I do get the appeal. But, as your graphic underlines, it is a rather very constant energy source, which means, that it doesn't pair very well with fluctuating sources like solar and wind.
Since your not from the US, I'm gonna forget about that example for the time being, and concede, that there might be smaller national grids, that would indeed suffer more extremly from a lack of wind/solar inputs. But nuclear still isn't a good fit then, because you'd actually need energy generation with a lower capacity factor, which can react to the fluctuating demand and generation in the grid.
Batteries are only one option here.
You use salt at all? That's Sodium-Chloride. The resources are abundant, easily available and are already being extracted for other purposes in large quantities.
So, yes, I think they will be feasible for the entire planet and it won't take decades to get the resources and build infrastructure to make them. The technology isn't all that different from other batteries, they can use existing infrastructure.
I don't have time to write more, right now, but I hope you can see some of the issues here.
Well yes. Obviously. And they are rarely able to supply at full power. So that means you are going to have to fill the gaps. To have a functioning grid, you need stability. You can’t say, well it works 95% of the time, as good as it gets folks!
The graph underlines that NPPs can reliably un at maximum power almost all of the time. Not that they have to. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t get what that means.
Excuse me what? The capacity factor is about reliability, not flexibility. Why on earth would you want something that’s less reliable. You know you can’t tune the wind or sun, right?
And nuclear is another. Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?
Yeah I know what sodium is. I don’t need a mansplaination, thanks.
But if you honestly think all it takes to make a sodium ion battery is slapping some salt inside a container we need to start at a whole another level…
No they can’t. We need all of those and more to make Li-ion batteries to make the transition to EVs.
Your entire premise is based on wishful thinking. Let’s not base our entire future on wishful thinking. Instead, let’s diversify, and yes, that includes nuclear to get us through the winter.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I'm tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I'd suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I'm under the impression, that that's the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn't track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I'm assuming it's based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
You can find capacity factors here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b (And in the similar table focussing on fossil power)
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I'd say it suffices as a base for discussion.
The PDF containing technical notes explains, how capacity factor is being calculated. See p. 21 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/AppendixC.pdf
Now I haven't had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I'd like to leave it here for the time being. I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I'd derail the discussion, so I'll explain myself later on.
Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.
You implied that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.
If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.
So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.
The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.
Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.
But if you stop assuming you’re talking to a moron I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question:
I admit, I'm not innocent in that regard, that's why I used the word "we", but I don't want to be accused of mansplaining basic English to you as well, so I'll leave it at that. ;)
But I'm kinda hard pressed, to not sound like I'm trying to attack you personally, when you keep insisting how basic some of that stuff is. I don't know how I'm supposed to point out mistakes you're making in a way that doesn't feel like an attack under those circumstances. Really, any correction I'm making will seem like I'm assuming you don't understand basic concepts.
Nonetheless, I'm gonna keep doing that, because, frankly, I think you're making mistakes there. Your idea, that the analysis of the data is so basic, that pointing to the capacity factor proves your argument is one of them.
The capacity factor for nuclear power plants is so high, because they run almost all the time at or close to nameplate power. And yes, that means they have to be reliable to get to that number. But the inverse is not also true. A lower capacity factor doesn't necessarily indicate that an energy source is unreliable. It just says, that it's not running all the time at its specified peak power.
A brief (hypothetical) thought experiment: if you had an NPP that could easily and quickly adjust its power output and you used it at full power to get through those windless winter nights, but tuned it down during the day or shut it off completely on summer days, what would that mean for its average capacity factor?
Of course, it would decrease, because you wouldn't run it near peak output all the time anymore.
Does that mean it's suddenly an unreliable energy source? Of course not.
That's also what I meant by saying that you needed energy sources with a lower capacity factor to complement a solar/wind heavy system. I admit, that was horrible wording on my part, because it confused cause and effect.
What I meant is, it's not the low capacity factor that makes a generator suitable to fulfill that role, but any generator taking that role, is inevitably going to have a lower capacity factor, no matter how reliable.
If you look at the capacity factors for natural gas power plants using gas turbines, which you can find here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_a
You can see, that they are horribly low. That's not because they are super unreliable, but because they are rarely being used at their rated power. The best thing about gas turbines is that their power output can quickly be adjusted, and that's how they're being employed.
As to the capacity factor of solar/wind power plants: Of course, it's going to be lower. Naturally, they can't run at their peak power output all the time, but nobody expects them to do that anyway. A system could only be called unreliable, if it didn't deliever, what was expected of it. Just pointing to the capacity factor is simply not a good indicator of reliabilty, or rather unreliability, as should be clear by the examples given above.
And that's why I think that the diagram you provided, doesn't show, what you wanted it to show.
Yes I understand what the word means. I used it as well.
You’re trying to make this problem about me again.
Nope. If you just act normally and don’t act like you’re talking to a five-year-old we will be just fine. Again, I’m not the problem here. Your pedantic way of discussing with someone is.
Of course you can turn power plants down, it’s what we’ve been discussing. Capacity factors as they are used now, are indeed a measure of reliability. We have simply mostly been building plants as we needed them and not building plants that were not needed anyway. Now as for the calculation for peak load plants, yes it leaves room for planned downtime. So in that sense it’s not a perfect measure of reliability. But the point is that for solar and wind, it is.
And I understand your point about gas turbines, since they are use for peak load, but the point is that we are trying to get rid of those. NPP’s can also work in load follow mode as they already are doing in France.
And unless you have some other kind of new reliable power plant that you can easily switch on and off that want to tell the world about, this is kinda it.
We are still going to need power on those quiet winter nights after an overcast day.
So if you want we can also talk about other measures like effective load carrying capacity, but the reliability numbers won’t really change.