4 ms·

Even nuclear needs flamme (fossil fuel) backup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 The fraction of ele

Even nuclear needs flamme (fossil fuel) backup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557498 The fraction of electricity produced with those heavy-emitting plants is the major question, and ways to use mostly renewables and therefore to reduce it are known: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557422

sanderjd 4y ago
Yeah, I think we need storage (edit: including hydrogen) to compete with natural gas turbines, regardless of whether or not the base load mix contains more nuclear.
pyrale 4y ago
Your message is incorrect. France never relied on gas as a complement for its nuclear fleet. First off, because we have always had enough reversible hydro if ever there was a need. Second, because nuclear in France can do load-following just fine. France's gas has three main sources: 1) industrial gas users that use the heat in a plant to generate some power, 2) gas companies building gas plants near their LNG terminals to have more options with their gas, 3) gas plants built in the 2000's by Poweo when the energy market opened, which are operated independently from EDF's nuclear plants.
- natmaka 4y ago
  This official (gov) document proves that I'm right: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... In the very first graph, titled "PRODUCTION NETTE D'ÉLECTRICITÉ", the reddish-orangish surface reflects coal, oil (petrol), gas (methane) (also biomass and waste but it was and stays a small fraction) Second: no, nuclear load-follow has severe limitations. Please read https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi-charge-seduit-europe/ https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi... Pertinent information: « un réacteur peut varier de 100 % à 20 % de puissance en une demi-heure, et remonter aussi vite après un palier d’au moins deux heures, et ce deux fois par jour » it means: "a reactor power output can vary from 100% to 20% in 30 minutes, then after 2 hours can go back to 100% at the same speed, and can cycle this way 2 times per day". This is quite a good performance when it comes to load-following (French engineers are very good at this), however it is insufficient in the real world (save any ridiculously expensive over-provision of nuclear reactor, most idling) and very weak compared to gas turbines performances. Then I can't understand your "gas has three main sources". It lists (including cogeneration) indeed "sources" of load-following, however they all are fueled by fossil fuels, and therefore are consistent with my observations: France needs fossil fuel for power generation, its nuclear fleet isn't sufficient.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > This official (gov) document proves that I'm right I'm not saying France doesn't have power from gas. I'm saying that the reason we have gas plants is completely unrelated to nuclear. If you look at intraday graphs, the resource historically used to improve performance is STEP hydro, not gas. > Second: no, nuclear load-follow has severe limitations. The article you quote does say the opposite of what you have it say. Let me quote from it: > Méconnue, la souplesse du parc nucléaire français permet d’ajuster à tout moment l’offre de production des différentes énergies variables à la demande des consommateurs. translation: "Little known, french nuclear plants' flexibility lets them continually adjust the production capacity, including variable energy sources, to consumers' needs" > however it is insufficient in the real world <citation needed> > It lists indeed "sources" of load-following No, it lists the reason why these historic plants were built. The reason was never load following, as you claimed earlier. > France needs fossil fuel for power generation, its nuclear fleet isn't sufficient. That is completely unrelated.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      > I'm not saying France doesn't have power from gas. I'm saying that the reason we have gas plants is completely unrelated to nuclear. According to this line of thought we prefer gas over nuclear. This is not true: on an economic perspective and also emission-wise nuclear + hydro is a better tandem. However it cannot fully cope and needs 'backup', which is nowadays mainly gas turbines in powerplants. Why, in your opinion, do we need to use those gas turbines? Right now https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix shows 9% gas, and everyone can check that it is a quite common figure: https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricite-par-filiere https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricit... > The article you quote does say the opposite No, your quote means "nuclear can be used", it is true and I don't deny it: I showed limits (stated in the very same document), meaning that nuclear follow-up cannot be done "at will", and also that other non-desirable (but more flexible) sources (gas) are in use. Why are they in use, if not in order to compensate nuclear's limits? Why do we need fossil fuel for power generation?
      - 4y ago

sanderjd 4y ago

Yeah, I think we need storage (edit: including hydrogen) to compete with natural gas turbines, regardless of whether or not the base load mix contains more nuclear.

pyrale 4y ago

Your message is incorrect. France never relied on gas as a complement for its nuclear fleet. First off, because we have always had enough reversible hydro if ever there was a need. Second, because nuclear in France can do load-following just fine. France's gas has three main sources: 1) industrial gas users that use the heat in a plant to generate some power, 2) gas companies building gas plants near their LNG terminals to have more options with their gas, 3) gas plants built in the 2000's by Poweo when the energy market opened, which are operated independently from EDF's nuclear plants.

natmaka 4y ago
This official (gov) document proves that I'm right: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... In the very first graph, titled "PRODUCTION NETTE D'ÉLECTRICITÉ", the reddish-orangish surface reflects coal, oil (petrol), gas (methane) (also biomass and waste but it was and stays a small fraction) Second: no, nuclear load-follow has severe limitations. Please read https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi-charge-seduit-europe/ https://www.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi... Pertinent information: « un réacteur peut varier de 100 % à 20 % de puissance en une demi-heure, et remonter aussi vite après un palier d’au moins deux heures, et ce deux fois par jour » it means: "a reactor power output can vary from 100% to 20% in 30 minutes, then after 2 hours can go back to 100% at the same speed, and can cycle this way 2 times per day". This is quite a good performance when it comes to load-following (French engineers are very good at this), however it is insufficient in the real world (save any ridiculously expensive over-provision of nuclear reactor, most idling) and very weak compared to gas turbines performances. Then I can't understand your "gas has three main sources". It lists (including cogeneration) indeed "sources" of load-following, however they all are fueled by fossil fuels, and therefore are consistent with my observations: France needs fossil fuel for power generation, its nuclear fleet isn't sufficient.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > This official (gov) document proves that I'm right I'm not saying France doesn't have power from gas. I'm saying that the reason we have gas plants is completely unrelated to nuclear. If you look at intraday graphs, the resource historically used to improve performance is STEP hydro, not gas. > Second: no, nuclear load-follow has severe limitations. The article you quote does say the opposite of what you have it say. Let me quote from it: > Méconnue, la souplesse du parc nucléaire français permet d’ajuster à tout moment l’offre de production des différentes énergies variables à la demande des consommateurs. translation: "Little known, french nuclear plants' flexibility lets them continually adjust the production capacity, including variable energy sources, to consumers' needs" > however it is insufficient in the real world <citation needed> > It lists indeed "sources" of load-following No, it lists the reason why these historic plants were built. The reason was never load following, as you claimed earlier. > France needs fossil fuel for power generation, its nuclear fleet isn't sufficient. That is completely unrelated.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    > I'm not saying France doesn't have power from gas. I'm saying that the reason we have gas plants is completely unrelated to nuclear. According to this line of thought we prefer gas over nuclear. This is not true: on an economic perspective and also emission-wise nuclear + hydro is a better tandem. However it cannot fully cope and needs 'backup', which is nowadays mainly gas turbines in powerplants. Why, in your opinion, do we need to use those gas turbines? Right now https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix shows 9% gas, and everyone can check that it is a quite common figure: https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricite-par-filiere https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricit... > The article you quote does say the opposite No, your quote means "nuclear can be used", it is true and I don't deny it: I showed limits (stated in the very same document), meaning that nuclear follow-up cannot be done "at will", and also that other non-desirable (but more flexible) sources (gas) are in use. Why are they in use, if not in order to compensate nuclear's limits? Why do we need fossil fuel for power generation?
    - 4y ago