4 ms·

A certain baseline power requirement must be met. It's also interesting to see the volatility of solar and wind be used as an argument against baseline generat

A certain baseline power requirement must be met. It's also interesting to see the volatility of solar and wind be used as an argument against baseline generation, as this has traditionally been an argument against renewables.

pfdietz 8y ago
It's an argument against renewables only when the renewables are expensive. When renewables are cheap, then nuclear is placed in an impossible situation, as nuclear either displaces the renewables when they ARE available (incurring a large marginal cost), or only runs when they aren't (forcing nuclear's large fixed costs to be amortized over much less output). It's likely that a cost optimized grid will have little or no nuclear in it.
- DennisP 8y ago
  Unless you do solar and mostly skip wind, in which case you can build enough nuclear to run the nighttime load and solar for just the extra daytime load, then you can run the nukes 24/7. That minimizes both nuclear downtime and storage requirements. But if we're going to build a lot of wind, that still doesn't necessarily doom nuclear, if we can lower the capital cost of nuclear. The article describes some fairly simple ways to go about that; a recent study at MIT had the same recommendations. Down the road a decade or so, molten salt reactors will start to be available, and those look to have much lower capital costs and good load-balancing.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    Running nuclear plants just at night would double the cost of that power. This would be insane. Using nuclear instead of solar when solar was available would increase the cost of that power by a factor of 3 or more. That would also be insane. Nuclear just doesn't have a place on a grid with a large renewable supply. EDIT: You wrote: "I agree that would be insane, which is why I said to run the nuclear 24/7 and build enough solar for the extra demand during the day." This is case #2, using nuclear power during the day when you could have used cheap solar. It makes no sense economically at current nuclear costs.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      I agree that would be insane, which is why I said to run the nuclear 24/7 and build enough solar for the extra demand during the day. Wind/solar is only that much cheaper if you ignore storage. Stop ignoring the possibilities of much cheaper nuclear and things look different anyway. South Korea is already 6X cheaper according to the article, and some GenIV designs are likely to do even better.
      - pfdietz 8y ago
        South Korea's numbers lack transparency, and I believe they assume very low interest rates (that is, they socialize the financial risk.) Is there a POSSIBILITY of much cheaper nuclear? Sure, anything is POSSIBLE. Is it LIKELY? Experience says "no". And surely it's not possible in the US right now. Who is going to suddenly build these much cheaper nukes here, the Nuclear Power Plant Fairy? The SMR companies are not in a position to deliver now; the one that is closest, NuScale, is not promising the kind of cost reductions that would be needed.
        sanxiyn 8y ago
        > Who is going to suddenly build these much cheaper nukes here, the Nuclear Power Plant Fairy? There actually is a simple solution: follow UAE and let Koreans build standardized APR-1400.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        "Robin Mills, CEO of Dubai-based energy consultancy Qamar Energy, has projected that Barakah will supply energy at a cost of roughly 11 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, assuming the startup delays are not substantial. (All four reactors are scheduled to be operating by 2021.) Mills regards that as inexpensive for low-carbon power that can be ramped up as demand increases. But solar is now even cheaper in the Gulf region, where the same intense sun that keeps the seawater hot puts solar power plants on steroids. “Solar has become the lowest-cost source of electricity compared to pretty much anything,” says Mills." https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-united-arab-emirates-nuclear-power-gambit https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-united-arab-emi... At the same time, solar PPAs in the US are falling so fast it's hard to keep track of the record holder. Here's one from last year for $0.023/kWh. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-beat-arizona-record-low-solar-ppa-price https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-beat-ari...

pfdietz 8y ago

It's an argument against renewables only when the renewables are expensive. When renewables are cheap, then nuclear is placed in an impossible situation, as nuclear either displaces the renewables when they ARE available (incurring a large marginal cost), or only runs when they aren't (forcing nuclear's large fixed costs to be amortized over much less output). It's likely that a cost optimized grid will have little or no nuclear in it.

DennisP 8y ago
Unless you do solar and mostly skip wind, in which case you can build enough nuclear to run the nighttime load and solar for just the extra daytime load, then you can run the nukes 24/7. That minimizes both nuclear downtime and storage requirements. But if we're going to build a lot of wind, that still doesn't necessarily doom nuclear, if we can lower the capital cost of nuclear. The article describes some fairly simple ways to go about that; a recent study at MIT had the same recommendations. Down the road a decade or so, molten salt reactors will start to be available, and those look to have much lower capital costs and good load-balancing.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Running nuclear plants just at night would double the cost of that power. This would be insane. Using nuclear instead of solar when solar was available would increase the cost of that power by a factor of 3 or more. That would also be insane. Nuclear just doesn't have a place on a grid with a large renewable supply. EDIT: You wrote: "I agree that would be insane, which is why I said to run the nuclear 24/7 and build enough solar for the extra demand during the day." This is case #2, using nuclear power during the day when you could have used cheap solar. It makes no sense economically at current nuclear costs.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    I agree that would be insane, which is why I said to run the nuclear 24/7 and build enough solar for the extra demand during the day. Wind/solar is only that much cheaper if you ignore storage. Stop ignoring the possibilities of much cheaper nuclear and things look different anyway. South Korea is already 6X cheaper according to the article, and some GenIV designs are likely to do even better.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      South Korea's numbers lack transparency, and I believe they assume very low interest rates (that is, they socialize the financial risk.) Is there a POSSIBILITY of much cheaper nuclear? Sure, anything is POSSIBLE. Is it LIKELY? Experience says "no". And surely it's not possible in the US right now. Who is going to suddenly build these much cheaper nukes here, the Nuclear Power Plant Fairy? The SMR companies are not in a position to deliver now; the one that is closest, NuScale, is not promising the kind of cost reductions that would be needed.
      - sanxiyn 8y ago
        > Who is going to suddenly build these much cheaper nukes here, the Nuclear Power Plant Fairy? There actually is a simple solution: follow UAE and let Koreans build standardized APR-1400.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        "Robin Mills, CEO of Dubai-based energy consultancy Qamar Energy, has projected that Barakah will supply energy at a cost of roughly 11 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, assuming the startup delays are not substantial. (All four reactors are scheduled to be operating by 2021.) Mills regards that as inexpensive for low-carbon power that can be ramped up as demand increases. But solar is now even cheaper in the Gulf region, where the same intense sun that keeps the seawater hot puts solar power plants on steroids. “Solar has become the lowest-cost source of electricity compared to pretty much anything,” says Mills." https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-united-arab-emirates-nuclear-power-gambit https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-united-arab-emi... At the same time, solar PPAs in the US are falling so fast it's hard to keep track of the record holder. Here's one from last year for $0.023/kWh. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-beat-arizona-record-low-solar-ppa-price https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-beat-ari...