3 ms·

In my country, which is a relative success story for wind? apparently circa. $ 40 billion, for, right now... one GW. On average - and be assured I have checked

In my country, which is a relative success story for wind? apparently circa. $ 40 billion, for, right now... one GW. On average - and be assured I have checked this - five, which puts it in the same cost / GW as nuclear, and a capacity factor, not of sixty percent as advertised, but twenty-five. And we don't dump a megatonne or so of CO2 into the atmosphere a week running gas plants to cover nuclear variability. As alluded to by someone else, big wind projects are starting to run into the same levels of NIMBYism as nukes, because the footprint is huge. You want to advocate for less nuclear, that megatonne a week is something you answer for.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
What is this "nuclear variability" you speak of? I thought they were pretty constant in their output, unlike wind / solar for which gas plants are needed to compensate.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I keep hearing they need to be switched off at short notice because… I’m not sure, accidents? I’ve never actually seen a link backing this claim, and I’d be interested.
  - Kliment 4y ago
    Nuclear plants need to be switched off for weeks/months at a time for the following reasons: - refueling (regularly done, highly plannable) - insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term) - planned maintenance (often combined with refueling) - unplanned maintenance (accidents) Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why most nuclear facilities have multiple reactors, so you can rotate these tasks among them and still have some power. Unfortunately, the cooling issue is becoming more and more of a problem, and many sites that used to operate year-round now have to scale down significantly in mid-summer due to lack of cooling water.
    - mathiasgredal 4y ago
      Why don't coal and gas power plants also have cooling issues?
      - hpkuarg 4y ago
        You can just turn them off. No combustion, no heat. I'm not an expert, but I'm given to understand nuclear reactions don't stop on a dime like that.
- juki 4y ago
  I think yodelshady is saying exactly that they don't need gas plants to cover nuclear while they do for wind.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

What is this "nuclear variability" you speak of? I thought they were pretty constant in their output, unlike wind / solar for which gas plants are needed to compensate.

ben_w 4y ago
I keep hearing they need to be switched off at short notice because… I’m not sure, accidents? I’ve never actually seen a link backing this claim, and I’d be interested.
- Kliment 4y ago
  Nuclear plants need to be switched off for weeks/months at a time for the following reasons: - refueling (regularly done, highly plannable) - insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term) - planned maintenance (often combined with refueling) - unplanned maintenance (accidents) Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why most nuclear facilities have multiple reactors, so you can rotate these tasks among them and still have some power. Unfortunately, the cooling issue is becoming more and more of a problem, and many sites that used to operate year-round now have to scale down significantly in mid-summer due to lack of cooling water.
  - mathiasgredal 4y ago
    Why don't coal and gas power plants also have cooling issues?
    - hpkuarg 4y ago
      You can just turn them off. No combustion, no heat. I'm not an expert, but I'm given to understand nuclear reactions don't stop on a dime like that.
juki 4y ago
I think yodelshady is saying exactly that they don't need gas plants to cover nuclear while they do for wind.