5 ms·

I disliked the headline, because it seemed to me that at the very least Renewables have a substantial role to play, even if nuclear is required for guaranteeing

I disliked the headline, because it seemed to me that at the very least Renewables have a substantial role to play, even if nuclear is required for guaranteeing baseload. This prompted me to have a look at the source and this may provide useful context https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Research_on_Equal_Opportunity https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Researc...

lwhi 5y ago
It sounds like a headline an organisation formed to lobby for the nuclear industry might use.
- pydry 5y ago
  https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Research_on_Equal_Opportunity https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Researc... it's a Koch outlet.
tlocke 5y ago
Baseload isn't really relevant when talking about meeting demand. What's important is that for any point in time all the energy sources added up are equal to the demand. System operators will use the cheapest source first, which is always renewables, then (at least in the UK) it'll typically use gas generation to meet the shortfall. Gas is particularly good for this because it can easily be turned up and down. In all this, baseload isn't really a relevant concept. In the UK, where there's a semblance of a free market in electricity generation, it's been possible for decades for nuclear power stations to be build by private industry. None have because they just can't compete economically. The cases where they have been built have all been when the government intervened in the market and heavily subsidized them. Nobody really knows why!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  >What's important is that for any point in time all the energy sources added up are equal to the demand. [...] then (at least in the UK) it'll typically use gas generation to meet the shortfall But does that work out to be better overall (ie. in terms of cost, or in terms of the environment) than having nuclear providing the baseload?
  - tlocke 5y ago
    If cost were the only thing you cared about, then no nuclear power stations would ever be built, they're simply much more expensive than gas, wind or solar. From an environmental point of view you wouldn't have nuclear either, the reason is that you can't turn it up and down as you can with gas, and so you always need to the gas to make up the difference between supply and demand. So really, nuclear is in competition with wind and solar, and nuclear will always lose out because it's so expensive.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Unless it's given massive subsidies like Hinkley point C.
    - unknown_error 5y ago
      Is it true you can't adjust the output of a nuclear plant? I thought I heard something about being to slide the cooling rods from "minimal output" to "Chernobyl", but I'm not a nuclear person.
      - jabl 5y ago
        Sure they can adjust output. Some are not licensed to do so, but that's more a paperwork hindrance than any actual physical reason. They can ramp about as fast as other generators using a steam cycle, like ccgt or coal. There are some situations like when you're at the end of the fuel cycle if you ramp down quickly you might have trouble starting quickly again due to Xe poisoning. But, if there was a reason to, the control system can be designed to provide sufficient excess reactivity to power through events like that (e.g. naval reactors). That being said, since most of the cost of a nuclear power plant is the capital cost, every time you're not generating at full power is time you're generating less revenue to cover the capital costs. So even in a hypothetical lowest cost zero carbon system with very high penetration of variable renewables (solar, wind), the nuclear plants would be mostly running flat out.
- cloverich 5y ago
  Nothing is as economic as fossil fuels, especially considering the infrastructure and know how we’ve built around them. If they didn’t have the side effect of climate change there would be no reason to push so hard on alternatives anytime soon. Renewables + nuclear gives us a chance at achieving a comparable quality of life without the impending climate risk but it will take a lot of investment at the expense of fossil fuels and other economic areas. Only policy will do that.
Y-bar 5y ago
More about the author himself: https://trueties.org/trueties.org/about-robert-bryce.html https://trueties.org/trueties.org/about-robert-bryce.html "Robert Bryce works for the Manhattan Institute, a think tank that has received more than $6 million in donations tied to the fossil fuel industry. He has written numerous critical books and articles about renewable energy."

lwhi 5y ago

It sounds like a headline an organisation formed to lobby for the nuclear industry might use.

pydry 5y ago
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Research_on_Equal_Opportunity https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Researc... it's a Koch outlet.

tlocke 5y ago

Baseload isn't really relevant when talking about meeting demand. What's important is that for any point in time all the energy sources added up are equal to the demand. System operators will use the cheapest source first, which is always renewables, then (at least in the UK) it'll typically use gas generation to meet the shortfall. Gas is particularly good for this because it can easily be turned up and down. In all this, baseload isn't really a relevant concept. In the UK, where there's a semblance of a free market in electricity generation, it's been possible for decades for nuclear power stations to be build by private industry. None have because they just can't compete economically. The cases where they have been built have all been when the government intervened in the market and heavily subsidized them. Nobody really knows why!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
>What's important is that for any point in time all the energy sources added up are equal to the demand. [...] then (at least in the UK) it'll typically use gas generation to meet the shortfall But does that work out to be better overall (ie. in terms of cost, or in terms of the environment) than having nuclear providing the baseload?
- tlocke 5y ago
  If cost were the only thing you cared about, then no nuclear power stations would ever be built, they're simply much more expensive than gas, wind or solar. From an environmental point of view you wouldn't have nuclear either, the reason is that you can't turn it up and down as you can with gas, and so you always need to the gas to make up the difference between supply and demand. So really, nuclear is in competition with wind and solar, and nuclear will always lose out because it's so expensive.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Unless it's given massive subsidies like Hinkley point C.
  - unknown_error 5y ago
    Is it true you can't adjust the output of a nuclear plant? I thought I heard something about being to slide the cooling rods from "minimal output" to "Chernobyl", but I'm not a nuclear person.
    - jabl 5y ago
      Sure they can adjust output. Some are not licensed to do so, but that's more a paperwork hindrance than any actual physical reason. They can ramp about as fast as other generators using a steam cycle, like ccgt or coal. There are some situations like when you're at the end of the fuel cycle if you ramp down quickly you might have trouble starting quickly again due to Xe poisoning. But, if there was a reason to, the control system can be designed to provide sufficient excess reactivity to power through events like that (e.g. naval reactors). That being said, since most of the cost of a nuclear power plant is the capital cost, every time you're not generating at full power is time you're generating less revenue to cover the capital costs. So even in a hypothetical lowest cost zero carbon system with very high penetration of variable renewables (solar, wind), the nuclear plants would be mostly running flat out.
cloverich 5y ago
Nothing is as economic as fossil fuels, especially considering the infrastructure and know how we’ve built around them. If they didn’t have the side effect of climate change there would be no reason to push so hard on alternatives anytime soon. Renewables + nuclear gives us a chance at achieving a comparable quality of life without the impending climate risk but it will take a lot of investment at the expense of fossil fuels and other economic areas. Only policy will do that.

Y-bar 5y ago

More about the author himself: https://trueties.org/trueties.org/about-robert-bryce.html https://trueties.org/trueties.org/about-robert-bryce.html "Robert Bryce works for the Manhattan Institute, a think tank that has received more than $6 million in donations tied to the fossil fuel industry. He has written numerous critical books and articles about renewable energy."