3 ms·

It actually depends entirely on the design of the reactor whether or not the plant can be used for peaking power. France used nuclear plants as load followers

by ohyes 10y ago

It actually depends entirely on the design of the reactor whether or not the plant can be used for peaking power. France used nuclear plants as load followers (their entire fleet). It stands to reason that one could be designed as a 'peaking' power plant if one had the desire. Nuclear aircraft carrier and submarine design are good at load following and may be suitable for "peaking" with some modification. Nuclear is expensive when compared to coal/oil/gas, but it's a bit of a catch-22. It's expensive to build a nuclear plant because we don't build very many, so you never get a real economy of scale in the production. Also they're expensive to insure/decommission, so they kind of need to be a state sponsored capital expense.

Retric 10y ago
At what cost? Load following is actually a much easer problem than peaking for nuclear power. Quickly going from 0 to 100% is much harder than 20-90%. This means they operate well as huge chunks of the grid, but don't fit nearly as well into a variable energy mix. A lot of different things make nuclear power expensive to build and operate. Compared to coal/natural gas they need a lot of extra buildings and much thicker walls etc. Compared to solar they need armed guards, and exclusion zone, regular inspections, etc. Space wise you can grow food in the middle of a wind farm without issue. It turns out the real problem is not construction costs so much as operation and decommissioning costs, which have little to do with economy's of scale. The decommissioning costs have also gotten much worse as investment returns have dropped. Paying for things 40 years down the line means return on investment becomes critical.
- ohyes 10y ago
  As I said WRT peaking, submarines and aircraft carriers can operate in this 0 to 100% way. Anyway, peaking is kind of irrelevant because it is a minimal section of the grid, We currently have a very limited number of nuclear reactor designs, so its possible that there are other better designs that would be possible with new technology. You have to understand that we're basically using 70s/80s designs in all of the current reactors (even brand new ones). There's been very little meaningful/adopted innovation in the field in the civilian sector. Agree about the decommissioning costs and operation costs compared to solar and wind at least. I think coal/natural gas/oil have other net negatives that really aren't accounted for economically (tragedy of the commons type stuff that we've never really accounted for economically and are only starting to take in to account far too late). But agreed, renewables and increasing efficiency needs to be our primary goal from a cost/benefit point of view. But... if you need a lot of constant base load, nuclear is a good option (better than renewables at least until battery technology catches up and is proven), and would be a better option if we were interested in investing in the technology and science to make it safer and more efficient. I kind of discount the economic arguments because we NEED low emission power sources. Saying 'well coal/natural gas is cheaper' is missing the point. The choices are almost everyone dies but its cheap, vs more expensive. Picking almost everyone dies is incredibly short-sighted. I'd spend whatever amount of money if it meant we could stop burning stuff. If the government needs to push it through, so be it.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The economic argument is rather persuasive IMO. The nuclear subsides are simply massive and often ignored. The cost problem with nuclear is not that it's slightly more expensive, it's vastly more expensive. For the same cast you can build a lot more renewables which reduces their variability. Yes, they will often be over producing, but from a cost standpoint that's not really an issue. PS: As to R&D, not having construction ready designs is a huge problem. If we had 20 years and 100's of billions for risky R&D that would be one thing. But, I think that time has passed.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      Coal subsidies are also massive and ignored. No, you cannot build enough renewable power to replace even a single nuclear plant in most of Europe. In the US, you'd have to build these in the desert to even come close, but maintenance would still make it hard to equal cost over time.
      - Retric 10y ago
        EU already get's more electricity from Renewables than Nuclear power so WTF are you smoking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_Europe... Electricity by source in 2014 Wind: 51.4 TWh (9.7%) Solar: 32.8 TWh (6.2%) Biomass: 53 TWh (10.0%) vs Nuclear: 91.8 TWh (17.2%) Biomass can be used for Peaking power and can fill gaps in wind and solar.

by ohyes 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

At what cost? Load following is actually a much easer problem than peaking for nuclear power. Quickly going from 0 to 100% is much harder than 20-90%. This means they operate well as huge chunks of the grid, but don't fit nearly as well into a variable energy mix. A lot of different things make nuclear power expensive to build and operate. Compared to coal/natural gas they need a lot of extra buildings and much thicker walls etc. Compared to solar they need armed guards, and exclusion zone, regular inspections, etc. Space wise you can grow food in the middle of a wind farm without issue. It turns out the real problem is not construction costs so much as operation and decommissioning costs, which have little to do with economy's of scale. The decommissioning costs have also gotten much worse as investment returns have dropped. Paying for things 40 years down the line means return on investment becomes critical.

ohyes 10y ago
As I said WRT peaking, submarines and aircraft carriers can operate in this 0 to 100% way. Anyway, peaking is kind of irrelevant because it is a minimal section of the grid, We currently have a very limited number of nuclear reactor designs, so its possible that there are other better designs that would be possible with new technology. You have to understand that we're basically using 70s/80s designs in all of the current reactors (even brand new ones). There's been very little meaningful/adopted innovation in the field in the civilian sector. Agree about the decommissioning costs and operation costs compared to solar and wind at least. I think coal/natural gas/oil have other net negatives that really aren't accounted for economically (tragedy of the commons type stuff that we've never really accounted for economically and are only starting to take in to account far too late). But agreed, renewables and increasing efficiency needs to be our primary goal from a cost/benefit point of view. But... if you need a lot of constant base load, nuclear is a good option (better than renewables at least until battery technology catches up and is proven), and would be a better option if we were interested in investing in the technology and science to make it safer and more efficient. I kind of discount the economic arguments because we NEED low emission power sources. Saying 'well coal/natural gas is cheaper' is missing the point. The choices are almost everyone dies but its cheap, vs more expensive. Picking almost everyone dies is incredibly short-sighted. I'd spend whatever amount of money if it meant we could stop burning stuff. If the government needs to push it through, so be it.
- Retric 10y ago
  The economic argument is rather persuasive IMO. The nuclear subsides are simply massive and often ignored. The cost problem with nuclear is not that it's slightly more expensive, it's vastly more expensive. For the same cast you can build a lot more renewables which reduces their variability. Yes, they will often be over producing, but from a cost standpoint that's not really an issue. PS: As to R&D, not having construction ready designs is a huge problem. If we had 20 years and 100's of billions for risky R&D that would be one thing. But, I think that time has passed.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Coal subsidies are also massive and ignored. No, you cannot build enough renewable power to replace even a single nuclear plant in most of Europe. In the US, you'd have to build these in the desert to even come close, but maintenance would still make it hard to equal cost over time.
    - Retric 10y ago
      EU already get's more electricity from Renewables than Nuclear power so WTF are you smoking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_Europe... Electricity by source in 2014 Wind: 51.4 TWh (9.7%) Solar: 32.8 TWh (6.2%) Biomass: 53 TWh (10.0%) vs Nuclear: 91.8 TWh (17.2%) Biomass can be used for Peaking power and can fill gaps in wind and solar.