4 ms·

> This makes the economics of nuclear just horrible, as it needs to be selling its power at a good price most of the time to make ends meet. Nuclear is not une

> This makes the economics of nuclear just horrible, as it needs to be selling its power at a good price most of the time to make ends meet. Nuclear is not uneconomical just because it only needs to run 50% of the time. That would just mean the price is double; there's no technical obstacle there. If twice as expensive is too expensive to compete with batteries (it is not), then nuclear is not economical period.

pfdietz 7y ago
Twice as expensive is possibly not too expensive to compete with batteries for LONG TERM storage. It's far too expensive to compete with batteries for diurnal load leveling. DC coupled batteries are already helping solar displace gas in the US west, for example, at price points nuclear can only dream of. Renewables + batteries, and + hydrogen for rare lulls/seasonal storage, will leave no place for new nuclear. The system will optimize out to 0% nuclear, once existing nuclear plants are gone.
- hwillis 7y ago
  IMO people, even experts, still hugely underestimate the importance of solar to long term storage. Utility solar is very uncommon in snowy parts of the US, but it's the only place you can reasonably generate winter power. The optimum winter angle in Massachusetts is just 24 degrees from vertical! That angle is so crazy steep that it can't possibly collect snow, but it generates several times more power than the rooftop panels that make up ~80% of MA solar. Since the total sunlight is 3.5x weaker in winter and demand is much higher, that's hugely important. The darkest winter months between October to February (~4 months total where insolation is ~1/2 annual average) would mean virtually no solar if MA does not build utility scale plants. Nuclear and wind would be flat out the only ways to supply that without emitting CO2. However, if panels are angled for winter use they can easily outcompete nuclear. Nuclear running 4 months per year would cost 3x as much as normal. Overbuilding solar by 3x and angling it at 24 degrees would cost over 3x as much and generate less than the nuclear (because of cloudy days), but all that power would be available year-round at no extra cost. The amount of storage required would be almost the same, since it only needs to account for the shorter length of the day.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    I believe there was a study in Minnesota that concluded they could get to 70% of electric demand before it made sense to start adding storage, by overbuilding and curtailing solar, and by installing some of it at winter angles. I suspect bifacial solar also makes a lot of sense there. A consequence of this will be that power will become very cheap much of the time. If you can consume power intermittently you'll be in a sweet spot.

pfdietz 7y ago

Twice as expensive is possibly not too expensive to compete with batteries for LONG TERM storage. It's far too expensive to compete with batteries for diurnal load leveling. DC coupled batteries are already helping solar displace gas in the US west, for example, at price points nuclear can only dream of. Renewables + batteries, and + hydrogen for rare lulls/seasonal storage, will leave no place for new nuclear. The system will optimize out to 0% nuclear, once existing nuclear plants are gone.

hwillis 7y ago
IMO people, even experts, still hugely underestimate the importance of solar to long term storage. Utility solar is very uncommon in snowy parts of the US, but it's the only place you can reasonably generate winter power. The optimum winter angle in Massachusetts is just 24 degrees from vertical! That angle is so crazy steep that it can't possibly collect snow, but it generates several times more power than the rooftop panels that make up ~80% of MA solar. Since the total sunlight is 3.5x weaker in winter and demand is much higher, that's hugely important. The darkest winter months between October to February (~4 months total where insolation is ~1/2 annual average) would mean virtually no solar if MA does not build utility scale plants. Nuclear and wind would be flat out the only ways to supply that without emitting CO2. However, if panels are angled for winter use they can easily outcompete nuclear. Nuclear running 4 months per year would cost 3x as much as normal. Overbuilding solar by 3x and angling it at 24 degrees would cost over 3x as much and generate less than the nuclear (because of cloudy days), but all that power would be available year-round at no extra cost. The amount of storage required would be almost the same, since it only needs to account for the shorter length of the day.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  I believe there was a study in Minnesota that concluded they could get to 70% of electric demand before it made sense to start adding storage, by overbuilding and curtailing solar, and by installing some of it at winter angles. I suspect bifacial solar also makes a lot of sense there. A consequence of this will be that power will become very cheap much of the time. If you can consume power intermittently you'll be in a sweet spot.