3 ms·

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 th

by 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.
      - unknown_error 5y ago
        Thank you for this detailed explanation!
    - jjk166 5y ago
      Nuclear plants can adjust output, but not quickly. As reaction rates change the composition of the core itself changes, which further modifies reaction rates. Ramping up to full power might take a plant 12 hours. While this is fine for dealing with seasonal variation in demand, or compensating for another plant going down for maintenance, it can't deal with the short term spikes in demand that happen throughout any given day. There are some designs that can ramp up faster, but they are uncommon at least in the US. All plants can decrease output quickly (critical for safety) but without that quick ramp up its still not suitable for dealing with short term dips. That being said, fuel represents only a tiny fraction of the cost of nuclear power, so it's fine to run a nuclear reactor at close to max power 24/7 and just use excess power for tasks like water desalination or simply vent off steam instead of passing it through the turbines when demand is lower.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  It's likely that it will work out better. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
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.

by tlocke 5y ago

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.
    - unknown_error 5y ago
      Thank you for this detailed explanation!
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Nuclear plants can adjust output, but not quickly. As reaction rates change the composition of the core itself changes, which further modifies reaction rates. Ramping up to full power might take a plant 12 hours. While this is fine for dealing with seasonal variation in demand, or compensating for another plant going down for maintenance, it can't deal with the short term spikes in demand that happen throughout any given day. There are some designs that can ramp up faster, but they are uncommon at least in the US. All plants can decrease output quickly (critical for safety) but without that quick ramp up its still not suitable for dealing with short term dips. That being said, fuel represents only a tiny fraction of the cost of nuclear power, so it's fine to run a nuclear reactor at close to max power 24/7 and just use excess power for tasks like water desalination or simply vent off steam instead of passing it through the turbines when demand is lower.
pfdietz 5y ago
It's likely that it will work out better. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/

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.