4 ms·

That is exactly nuclear energy comes in. It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable (esp. Solar) energy power-plant in any stable manner. Nuclear

by screye 6y ago

That is exactly nuclear energy comes in. It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable (esp. Solar) energy power-plant in any stable manner. Nuclear energy serves the purpose of acting as the filler for the delta between the peak and trough.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
>It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable (esp. Solar) energy power-plant in any stable manner. I agreed with that before Tesla's Big Battery experiment - and that leveraged established tech. I can't wait to see how sodium or one of the other, in-dev materials eventually supplant lithium, on a massive scale.
- 666lumberjack 6y ago
  > I agreed with that before Tesla's Big Battery Tesla's battery isn't really grid-scale energy storage of the kind you'd need to do 100% renewables. It's more for smoothing out fluctuations in the grid than for filling in for intermittent sources when conditions are poor. If the gamble on renewables works out, it will be because of geological hydrogen energy storage. That's the only way to get country-days worth of storage at a price that's actually feasible (if it works in practise like it does on paper).
ghouse 6y ago
> It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable It is equally impossible to run a grid from only nuclear power. These assets can't "load follow" which is why in the US the 1970s build-out of nuclear power was contemporaneous with the build-out of pumped hydro storage.
- enaaem 6y ago
  Europe already runs load following plants for a long time now. Article from 2011. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-lo...
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
If the topic here is still "not R-wing enough", Nuclear power is something that Republicans generally agree with increasing more so than Democrats [1]. It's still lower than I'd prefer, further nuclear power research seems by far the best way to truly go off fossil fuels long term (even with the improvements in batteries, we are several orders of magnitude away from it actually being realistic to build them for power grid scale energy storing). New reactor designs can go 72 hours [2] without any human interaction, which avoids much of the natural disaster concerns, such as requiring generators for cooling, which is what caused the major problems in Fukushima. [1] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/1850729... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
fuoqi 6y ago
>Nuclear energy serves the purpose of acting as the filler for the delta between the peak and trough. No. Just. No. It's incredibly stupid and inefficient to use nuclear as a peak power plant. Due to the huge CAPEX reasonable power system should use nuclear for base load and maximize capacity factor as much as possible. Yes, there are experiments on maneuvering nuclear plants, but: a) usually maneuvering range is relatively small (60-80% from max output) b) latency is still too big when compared to gas plants and hydroelectric storage. There are some micro-nuclear plant designs, which would be more flexible and more suitable for this scenario, but they are mostly just paper reactors.
- Ruthalas 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure your parent comment was suggesting the opposite of what you understood them to be suggesting. I believe they meant the delta time between peaks, rather than the delta power between baseline and peak.

by screye 6y ago

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

>It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable (esp. Solar) energy power-plant in any stable manner. I agreed with that before Tesla's Big Battery experiment - and that leveraged established tech. I can't wait to see how sodium or one of the other, in-dev materials eventually supplant lithium, on a massive scale.

666lumberjack 6y ago
> I agreed with that before Tesla's Big Battery Tesla's battery isn't really grid-scale energy storage of the kind you'd need to do 100% renewables. It's more for smoothing out fluctuations in the grid than for filling in for intermittent sources when conditions are poor. If the gamble on renewables works out, it will be because of geological hydrogen energy storage. That's the only way to get country-days worth of storage at a price that's actually feasible (if it works in practise like it does on paper).

ghouse 6y ago

> It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable It is equally impossible to run a grid from only nuclear power. These assets can't "load follow" which is why in the US the 1970s build-out of nuclear power was contemporaneous with the build-out of pumped hydro storage.

enaaem 6y ago
Europe already runs load following plants for a long time now. Article from 2011. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-lo...

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago

If the topic here is still "not R-wing enough", Nuclear power is something that Republicans generally agree with increasing more so than Democrats [1]. It's still lower than I'd prefer, further nuclear power research seems by far the best way to truly go off fossil fuels long term (even with the improvements in batteries, we are several orders of magnitude away from it actually being realistic to build them for power grid scale energy storing). New reactor designs can go 72 hours [2] without any human interaction, which avoids much of the natural disaster concerns, such as requiring generators for cooling, which is what caused the major problems in Fukushima. [1] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/1850729... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

fuoqi 6y ago

>Nuclear energy serves the purpose of acting as the filler for the delta between the peak and trough. No. Just. No. It's incredibly stupid and inefficient to use nuclear as a peak power plant. Due to the huge CAPEX reasonable power system should use nuclear for base load and maximize capacity factor as much as possible. Yes, there are experiments on maneuvering nuclear plants, but: a) usually maneuvering range is relatively small (60-80% from max output) b) latency is still too big when compared to gas plants and hydroelectric storage. There are some micro-nuclear plant designs, which would be more flexible and more suitable for this scenario, but they are mostly just paper reactors.

Ruthalas 6y ago
I'm pretty sure your parent comment was suggesting the opposite of what you understood them to be suggesting. I believe they meant the delta time between peaks, rather than the delta power between baseline and peak.