3 ms·
It still means power for air conditioning is ~free during the day when it's most needed, and you could pre-cool or pre-heat a bulk block with high heat capacity
by tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
It still means power for air conditioning is ~free during the day when it's most needed, and you could pre-cool or pre-heat a bulk block with high heat capacity, then slowly use the heat/cold during the day.
You can charge the electric cars when there's an excess, so in particular all the extra load from electric car charging that some people were so worried about is no longer a concern.
If it gets cheap enough, you can overbuild capacity so that you have just enough power if it's a bit overcast, and way too much when there's sun (since solar cells can be safely "turned off" as far as I know, unlike conventional plants).
If we now get some process for capturing carbon from the air where electricity is the main cost (i.e. overbuilding capacity and using it only 20% of the time is affordable), we now have a place to put all the excess electricity during peak.
- edhelas 6y agoI think that you don't see how much land you actually need. Maybe in America there is plenty of space, but in Europe it's way more difficult. To replace one nuclear reactor, you need ~ half of Paris in solar panel. And still need energy "at night". Yes heating water, or cooling places are nice. But your trains ain't gonna work "only when there is sun". If you need backup at one moment, you need 0C0² backup and basically: Or you build dam, or you build nuclear plants. If you build nuclear plants, it's basically dumb to have plenty of renewable next to it…
- stale2002 6y agoFortunately space and land are cheap in the vast scheme of things. There are very large amounts of "free" space, on rooftops, for example.
- WalterBright 6y agoThe last time I flew to Europe, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of residential rooftop solar there was.
- alpaca128 6y ago> you need ~ half of Paris in solar panel So put solar panels on roofs in Paris then. Europe has plenty of space if you actually look for it.
- magicalhippo 6y agoI actually did some calculations based on my previous apartment. We had remote heating and hot water, so only needed power for cooking, PC's etc. I found that if I covered the section of the roof above my apartment with solar panels, I could be "off grid" almost then entire year. Except my apartment was on top, and there were four more just like it below me...
- lumost 6y agoI don't think much thought has been given to the cost structure of nuclear peak plants. A nuclear facility which only generated power part of the time should have a longer service life and generate less waste per unit time. Meaning the high capex decommissioning process may be pushed back decades or more.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- p1mrx 6y agoIt makes sense that a nuclear peaker plant could last longer, but it's probably a challenge to sell an investment where the payoff comes after the investors are dead. In the short to medium term, that unused capacity is lost profit. Maybe with a carbon tax, this could work... otherwise natural gas peakers will take all the money off the table.
- makomk 6y agoOne of the things limiting the life of nuclear power plants is damage from thermal cycling. So a nuclear facility which only generates power part of the time can have a shorter service life in terms of calendar time (and will almost certainly have a shorter life in terms of time spent operating or power produced).
- mkingston 6y agoHalf of Paris city or half of Paris metropolitan area? Where the former is inconsequential on the scale of France, and the latter is merely small.
- edhelas 6y agoParis city :) This a lot, but not that much.