4 ms·

> But there is a _HUGE_ difference between simply not having the capacity because the wind isn't blowing, and having to predict 12-24 hours in advance what the

> But there is a _HUGE_ difference between simply not having the capacity because the wind isn't blowing, and having to predict 12-24 hours in advance what the energy load is going to be. In the latter case its entirely possible to spin a nuke or coal plant up in anticipation of the need. It seems like you think that no wind or wind comes as a complete surprise and that they don't use models to estimate the wind for the next day? How do you think the day-ahead prices are calculated? 1GW missing is 1GW missing, it doesn't matter if that's wind or nuclear. That mismatch needs to be accounted for.

StillBored 4y ago
The point isn't that they aren't modeling it, the point is when there is a shortfall, they can't just tell the wind to produce more, they have to find more traditional sources, and when those run out... well... calls for conservation and rolling blackouts when those fail. And they can and do, tell traditional plants they can't go down for maintenance, or that they have to come back online.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  I don't get how this relates to my original point. Do you agree or disagree that both wind and nuclear need fossil fuel backups if there is no hydro that can fill in for the missing capacity?
  - StillBored 4y ago
    No, because I think nukes can be throttled and designed for load following, particularly on the timeframes required for grid supply.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      Are you suggesting to run the current ones at lower than optimal output and only run at optimal output when necessary? That doesn't sound like a good use of capital.
      - StillBored 4y ago
        Vs having 100% of your worse case capacity in gas plants sitting around idle? The solar/wind numbers aren't even remotely comparable at this point because no one factors those in until the power bill shows up, then somehow the price goes up as we add more "cheap" renewables.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Then each kWh costs even more. But they already cost too much.
      - StillBored 4y ago
        Ok sure, ignore the CO2 costs... Because without nukes your going to get carbon production, and with energy usage growing year over year, CO2 usage will continue to increase. If your lucky it might go down for a couple years before resuming the upward trend, but that doesn't even look probable at this point since countries are killing their carbon free sources (nukes) faster than they are growing the percentage of CO2 free energy production. And those nukes are going to look downright inexpensive if/when we ever get the point of consuming more than say 2/3'rds of the yearly power from wind/solar. So, keep wishing for that magic renewable bullet and keep watching the gobal CO2 increase and getting pushback from people who aren't happy about rolling blackouts, or their energy prices going up and up and up. If the greenheads got out of the way and stopped trying to kill every nuke plant the engineering and construction prices would fall significantly. Its not like they are actually that hard to build, we did it in the past, and places that aren't Europe and the US somehow manage to do it for significantly less too. AKA, the price is a political problem not a technical one.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Each nuke project greenlighted means burning coal for ten or more years while building it. The money spent just on that coal over those ten years would have paid for enough solar to displace it all, immediately, and then more after. The money handed over to the contractor for the nuke, meanwhile, could have instead built out several more matching solar and wind farms, that would also come online in just a year or two, displacing that many times more CO2 emission. So, each nuke plant started, diverting money from building out renewables, brings climate catastrophe nearer. Coal interests are lobbying now for nuke projects, because it means a continuing market for coal while they are built, vs. wind and solar that displace coal market share immediately.
        StillBored 4y ago

StillBored 4y ago

The point isn't that they aren't modeling it, the point is when there is a shortfall, they can't just tell the wind to produce more, they have to find more traditional sources, and when those run out... well... calls for conservation and rolling blackouts when those fail. And they can and do, tell traditional plants they can't go down for maintenance, or that they have to come back online.

cinntaile 4y ago
I don't get how this relates to my original point. Do you agree or disagree that both wind and nuclear need fossil fuel backups if there is no hydro that can fill in for the missing capacity?
- StillBored 4y ago
  No, because I think nukes can be throttled and designed for load following, particularly on the timeframes required for grid supply.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    Are you suggesting to run the current ones at lower than optimal output and only run at optimal output when necessary? That doesn't sound like a good use of capital.
    - StillBored 4y ago
      Vs having 100% of your worse case capacity in gas plants sitting around idle? The solar/wind numbers aren't even remotely comparable at this point because no one factors those in until the power bill shows up, then somehow the price goes up as we add more "cheap" renewables.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Then each kWh costs even more. But they already cost too much.
    - StillBored 4y ago
      Ok sure, ignore the CO2 costs... Because without nukes your going to get carbon production, and with energy usage growing year over year, CO2 usage will continue to increase. If your lucky it might go down for a couple years before resuming the upward trend, but that doesn't even look probable at this point since countries are killing their carbon free sources (nukes) faster than they are growing the percentage of CO2 free energy production. And those nukes are going to look downright inexpensive if/when we ever get the point of consuming more than say 2/3'rds of the yearly power from wind/solar. So, keep wishing for that magic renewable bullet and keep watching the gobal CO2 increase and getting pushback from people who aren't happy about rolling blackouts, or their energy prices going up and up and up. If the greenheads got out of the way and stopped trying to kill every nuke plant the engineering and construction prices would fall significantly. Its not like they are actually that hard to build, we did it in the past, and places that aren't Europe and the US somehow manage to do it for significantly less too. AKA, the price is a political problem not a technical one.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Each nuke project greenlighted means burning coal for ten or more years while building it. The money spent just on that coal over those ten years would have paid for enough solar to displace it all, immediately, and then more after. The money handed over to the contractor for the nuke, meanwhile, could have instead built out several more matching solar and wind farms, that would also come online in just a year or two, displacing that many times more CO2 emission. So, each nuke plant started, diverting money from building out renewables, brings climate catastrophe nearer. Coal interests are lobbying now for nuke projects, because it means a continuing market for coal while they are built, vs. wind and solar that displace coal market share immediately.
        StillBored 4y ago