2 ms·

Hu, a fully nuclear grid would be built to support the highest demand, and plants would be giving energy away when there is a surplus (or actually what would pr

Hu, a fully nuclear grid would be built to support the highest demand, and plants would be giving energy away when there is a surplus (or actually what would probably happen is that people would design plants that can economically load follow). So, that surplus could go into various liquid fuel's, or whatever. Its something I've said before, you overbuild nukes, and use the excess capacity for water desalination, jet fuel production, CO2 recapture, or any other energy intensive process which creates a product that can be easily stored. Nuclear energy is basically free once you have built the plant.

Melatonic 5y ago
I agree - if having TOO MUCH power is the thing we are saying is a disadvantage of Nuclear that sounds like a pretty damn good problem to have. We just need to find some new creative ways to use that excess power. Maybe an interesting way to do this would be to give "power" grants to local students or universities - applications could be sent in with proposals and test projects and then those who are accepted would get access to free power during excess times and maybe also some kind of warehouse like workspace / nearby location. Could be a huge educational benefit and drive innovation.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We already know what to do with excess power: capture carbon, electrolyse hydrogen, synthesize ammonia, kerosene, and methane, and refine aluminum; and charge storage systems. It takes time and capital to build all of those out: capital that nuke plant construction and refurbishing compete for. It is a much, much better use of capital to build the others out, and the solar and wind, than to spend the money trying to bring those ramshackle contraptions out of retirement.
ncmncm 5y ago
The last sentence is quite far from true. It used to be not-too-dishonest when compared to coal, but always was compared to hydro. Now we have solar and wind, besides.

Melatonic 5y ago

I agree - if having TOO MUCH power is the thing we are saying is a disadvantage of Nuclear that sounds like a pretty damn good problem to have. We just need to find some new creative ways to use that excess power. Maybe an interesting way to do this would be to give "power" grants to local students or universities - applications could be sent in with proposals and test projects and then those who are accepted would get access to free power during excess times and maybe also some kind of warehouse like workspace / nearby location. Could be a huge educational benefit and drive innovation.

ncmncm 5y ago
We already know what to do with excess power: capture carbon, electrolyse hydrogen, synthesize ammonia, kerosene, and methane, and refine aluminum; and charge storage systems. It takes time and capital to build all of those out: capital that nuke plant construction and refurbishing compete for. It is a much, much better use of capital to build the others out, and the solar and wind, than to spend the money trying to bring those ramshackle contraptions out of retirement.

ncmncm 5y ago

The last sentence is quite far from true. It used to be not-too-dishonest when compared to coal, but always was compared to hydro. Now we have solar and wind, besides.