“with wind the single-biggest contributor… Power production costs have declined “by almost half” … And the clean energy sector has created 50,000 new jobs… Ask me what was the impact on the electricity sector in Uruguay after this tragic war in Europe — zero.”

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder how much of that is biomass, and how they’re planning to grow enough vegetation to renew iy

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      This aspect is a big aspect of intermittent renewables energy that is often dismissed: you need piloted energy as a backup, the amount of piloted energy depend on how oversized is the intermittent energy installation.

      For renewable piloted energy there is two options that I know of: hydro and biomass. Uruguay is using both.

      It’s something to keep in mind if we want to reach 100% renewables without nuclear, we need to increase the biomass electricity production.

      On another hand we are already using a lot of biomass to produce ethanol and biodiesel. A lot of land is also use for animal feed, so I’m a society with less ICE cars and less meat eated we might have enough land to grow biomass for electricity generation.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, but I’m wondering how Uruguay is planning to go from a “might” to a “definitely” enough biomass production

      • Jojo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Biomass as a source of energy has a lot of the same problems as fossil fuels, no? Why is nuclear not on the table while biomass is?

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear does not have the same function than biomass.

          A biomass power station is (relatively) cheap to build but the fuel is expensive. So it make sense to have it as a backup and only use it when necessary.

          On the other hand nuclear is expensive to build but the fuel is cheap. So building a nuclear power station as a backup does not make sense, it needs to run all the time.

          This is the basic ideas, but in practice nuclear is actually beneficial to renewables. The electricity network operator did several scenarios for the French electrical production in 2050. In their scenarios, having around 13% of nuclear in the mix divided by almost two the amount of solar, wind turbines and batteries needed.

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But nuclear is scalable while running, allowing you to ramp up and down as needed to cover for the intermittent nature of renewables without relying on fossil fuels or similar. Isn’t that why adding nuclear into the mix is such an effective strategy?

    • taffingitout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can check it out in real time here: UTE Generation Biomass is not something so actively sought, it’s more of a consequence of other industries here. You are correct that we have other renewable sources that work when wind is not on its peak. There are two hidro plants that can work when demand is large and wind is not on its peak, and they’ve managed to keep this regime even on dry or draught conditions.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll have to check later. It seems like the page is down, I’ll get back to you. thank you!

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We really need to think of biomass as batteries. In both cases, it’s tough to scale up enough for full coverage but we know how to store biodiesel or ethanol, it’s very energy dense. Scattering a bunch of diesel generators with big biodiesel tanks might be a better answer than batteries for when the wind doesn’t blow

      It also ensures a market and distribution industry for farming and construction vehicles where batteries may not work

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It takes a decade and quite a bit of space to make a tree (for example), it’s technically renewable but the fuel production is very slow. I’m curious how they’re planning to keep that up

        • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Other things grow faster and take up less space than trees. For example most biofuel is made from maize and sugarcane.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            eyy thank you! That makes sense! You seem to be the only one to actually try to answer my question :/

            I know where to look further! thank you!

            • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No problem :) It was interesting to read a bit more about it. I reckon hemp would be the ultimate one though - super fast growing, will grow in most climates and really versatile for making fibers.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yea, that’s the issue. For something to be sustainable, you need to replenish the fuel source. Biomass can be, but you need a lot of it, but we also need it for food

        • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By that logic you could also not call the flat thing inside a phone a battery because it can’t feed back into the grid.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Other way round, you can take biomass and turn it into electricity easily. But you cant easily turn electricity into biomass. (it is easy on a phone to go both ways tho, google “USB c OTG adapter”)

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            technically yes, well an accu really. But that might be different in English. The question is whether that sunlight charging of that carbon store can keep up with our consumption