4 ms·

I don't know why you say you can't throttle nuclear up and down. All thermal plants have inertia, but nuclear is if anything easier to throttle than fossil fuel

by dTal 4y ago

I don't know why you say you can't throttle nuclear up and down. All thermal plants have inertia, but nuclear is if anything easier to throttle than fossil fuels. There's a lot of numbers, and comments from nuclear plant operators, in this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/m0rwso/how_fast_can_a_nuclear_power_plant_ramp_up/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/m0rwso/how_fa...

logifail 4y ago
> I don't know why you say you can't throttle nuclear up and down. All thermal plants have inertia, but nuclear is if anything easier to throttle than fossil fuels. In that case why don't we let the market build nuclear plants without any state guarantees or insurance and they can simply "throttle up" when they're required. No need to fix a strike price for decades before investors are interested. I'm sure it makes financial sense. Honest. /s
- akvadrako 4y ago
  Nuclear has very low fuel costs, under 1%. So it really doesnt make sense to throttle them unless the price goes negative. Having an upfront guaranteed price is just a way to spread the construction cost over more time.
  - stingraycharles 4y ago
    You're forgetting that the energy market requires an absolute balance between supply and demand; if you're supplying energy without anyone using it, you're going to have a very bad time.
    - akvadrako 4y ago
      That is covered by the case of negative prices.
- dTal 4y ago
  That's quite the non-sequitor. An exploration of how broken "the market" is would be an entirely separate discussion. If you wanted to have that discussion, we could start by analyzing the massive subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels, not to mention the complete lack of accounting for its toxic byproducts which are dumped into the atmosphere (while nuclear power is legally required to track and safely store every molecule). Or we could just keep building gas peaker plants and ignore the mass die-offs, because "the market" can't possibly be wrong, right? /s
  - logifail 4y ago
    > That's quite the non-sequitor Is it? If nuclear is indeed able to throttle output up and down to match demand - or perhaps we should say, to match spot pricing(!) - why on Earth would we need to fix a minimum price for decades in advance in order to attract investment to build new ones? "Given its commitment to building Hinkley Point C, the [UK] government had no choice but to make EDF an offer that was too good to resist. It offered to guarantee EDF a fixed price for each unit of energy produced at Hinkley for its first 35 years of operation. In 2012, the guaranteed price – known as the 'strike price' – was set at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh), which would then rise with inflation. (One MWh is roughly equivalent to the electricity used by around 330 homes in one hour.) This means that if the wholesale price of electricity across the country falls below £92.50, EDF will receive an extra payment from the consumer as a 'top-up' to fill the gap. This will be added to electricity bills around the country – even if you aren’t receiving electricity from Hinkley Point C, you will still be making a payment to EDF."[0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
    - dTal 4y ago
      > If nuclear is indeed able to throttle output up and down to match demand - or perhaps we should say, to match spot pricing(!) - why on Earth would we need to fix a minimum price for decades in advance in order to attract investment to build new ones Lots of reasons, one of which my sibling comment by user akvadrako has touched on. The question of whether it's currently economically viable to do so is a separate discussion. You persist on making this odd logical syllogism - if nuclear could throttle, the market would look like X, the market looks like Y, therefore nuclear can't throttle - and keep ignoring the technical fact of the matter that nuclear plants can in point of fact throttle. I have already linked to robust corroboration of this fact so I don't think there's any more for me to say here.

by dTal 4y ago

logifail 4y ago

> I don't know why you say you can't throttle nuclear up and down. All thermal plants have inertia, but nuclear is if anything easier to throttle than fossil fuels. In that case why don't we let the market build nuclear plants without any state guarantees or insurance and they can simply "throttle up" when they're required. No need to fix a strike price for decades before investors are interested. I'm sure it makes financial sense. Honest. /s

akvadrako 4y ago
Nuclear has very low fuel costs, under 1%. So it really doesnt make sense to throttle them unless the price goes negative. Having an upfront guaranteed price is just a way to spread the construction cost over more time.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  You're forgetting that the energy market requires an absolute balance between supply and demand; if you're supplying energy without anyone using it, you're going to have a very bad time.
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    That is covered by the case of negative prices.
dTal 4y ago
That's quite the non-sequitor. An exploration of how broken "the market" is would be an entirely separate discussion. If you wanted to have that discussion, we could start by analyzing the massive subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels, not to mention the complete lack of accounting for its toxic byproducts which are dumped into the atmosphere (while nuclear power is legally required to track and safely store every molecule). Or we could just keep building gas peaker plants and ignore the mass die-offs, because "the market" can't possibly be wrong, right? /s
- logifail 4y ago
  > That's quite the non-sequitor Is it? If nuclear is indeed able to throttle output up and down to match demand - or perhaps we should say, to match spot pricing(!) - why on Earth would we need to fix a minimum price for decades in advance in order to attract investment to build new ones? "Given its commitment to building Hinkley Point C, the [UK] government had no choice but to make EDF an offer that was too good to resist. It offered to guarantee EDF a fixed price for each unit of energy produced at Hinkley for its first 35 years of operation. In 2012, the guaranteed price – known as the 'strike price' – was set at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh), which would then rise with inflation. (One MWh is roughly equivalent to the electricity used by around 330 homes in one hour.) This means that if the wholesale price of electricity across the country falls below £92.50, EDF will receive an extra payment from the consumer as a 'top-up' to fill the gap. This will be added to electricity bills around the country – even if you aren’t receiving electricity from Hinkley Point C, you will still be making a payment to EDF."[0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
  - dTal 4y ago
    > If nuclear is indeed able to throttle output up and down to match demand - or perhaps we should say, to match spot pricing(!) - why on Earth would we need to fix a minimum price for decades in advance in order to attract investment to build new ones Lots of reasons, one of which my sibling comment by user akvadrako has touched on. The question of whether it's currently economically viable to do so is a separate discussion. You persist on making this odd logical syllogism - if nuclear could throttle, the market would look like X, the market looks like Y, therefore nuclear can't throttle - and keep ignoring the technical fact of the matter that nuclear plants can in point of fact throttle. I have already linked to robust corroboration of this fact so I don't think there's any more for me to say here.