Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after Fukushima

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by phtrivier on Thursday March 11, 2021 @07:14AM (#26423206)

My first hunch would be to answer "importing", but it's not always possible to check.

In the case of Scotland, is [1] giving a realistic view of Scotland (it mixes Scotland / England, so I can't really tell ?)

At the time of reading, the mix (again, for GB) of consummed electricity is about 40% wind+solar, 30% gas, 10% whatever, 10% domestic nuclear, and 10% "electricity imported from France", wich is usually 70% nuclear.

I'm writing this middle of the day, in March, so I assume the wind+solar part is working at a nice capacity (it would be much more unfair to compare it in the middle of the night.)

So on a very first approximation that I'm really ready to dismiss based on more data, it seems that Scotland produces a lot of electricity from renewables (a good thing !), and consumes electricy made from a bunch of sources, some of which are not renewables. Is that fair ?

Follow-up questions: are there countries that managed to ditch fossil fuels for their electricity production and to not rely on imports / neighboors without renewables ?

The only examples I have in mind are those relying on hydro (Norway, Costa Rica, maybe ?) who were blessed with mountains.

[1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by saalweachter on Thursday March 11, 2021 @08:57AM (#26424031)

My vague understanding based on "stuff I've heard or read at various points" is that you can stuff up to like 80-85% wind+solar on a grid before you start having real problems with the fluctuations in production.

If my vague recollections are recollecting something that was correct and not BS when I heard it, Scotland might be fine with it's ~17% nuclear, replacing the remaining 30% gas with more wind+solar.

[ Parent | on HN ]