3 ms·

> Your paper says that nuclear has some limited load following abilities. Load following requirements aren't determined by the plant operator, they're determin

by pyrale 4y ago

> Your paper says that nuclear has some limited load following abilities. Load following requirements aren't determined by the plant operator, they're determined by the grid operator, and they're the same for every controllable output source. So far, nuclear plants fully comply with the european grid requirements. > You appear to be claiming this means that no storage/batteries are required for nuclear grids Well, yes, that's what I'm saying, and that's what the article says. > It would be an interesting math exercise It's not an interesting math exercise, it's the very nature of the problem. You keep ignoring that just because it is convenient to pretend a 55€/MWh nuclear plant is equivalent to a 44€/installed MWh wind farm. In reality, building wind farms or PV farms create external dependencies. These dependencies are absorbed without too much of a cost when your grid massively depends on gas. The rest of your message simply denies this reality because it doesn't align with your belief. > it has lots of details about how the French are in denial about this incoming reality IDK what you think the article says. It talks about the failure from political leadership to provide certainty about the future of power in France, and, as a consequence, the fact that nothing has been done in the last two decades to prepare our future production means. It's been well known for a while now, and the crisis means the penny had dropped for everyone at the time the article was written. It is completely unrelated to nuclear plants ; had we had gas plants instead, our politicians would have made the same mistake.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Well, yes, that's what I'm saying, and that's what the article says. No, it doesn't. They'd love to be able to say that. The reason they don't say it loudly and clearly is because it's not true. So they have to say lots of things that kind of sound a bit like that if you are not paying attention, because it would be really good for them if it was true. But it's not. France is going to struggle to keep 50% of their power nuclear even with a will to try. So in many ways it does not matter. But so many people say it as a way to, falsely, impugn renewables that I'm standing on the principle. What you claim is true is not true. The document does not claim it, and if it did it would be lying.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > No, it doesn't. They'd love to be able to say that. The reason they don't say it loudly and clearly is because it's not true. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. The people writing these documents are engineers working at a public company, not members of a secret group trying to wash your brain. All the data they quote can be cross-examined. It doesn't require belief to make one's mind up. > France is going to struggle to keep 50% of their power nuclear even with a will to try. I don't really see how that's related to the load-following ability of nuclear plants.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    They got the data and graphs from this document: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... And put as good a spin on it as they could. But the underlying facts are not great. Figure 1.3 for example, which shows the flexibility of nuclear in France and nuclear is the thing on the chart that varies least, while all the other follow the demand much more closely, especially hydro. Or figure 4.1 where they don't bother going below 60% usage as the price for nuclear would just keep rising, and it's out of design range for most of them anyway. As that document makes clear, nuclear has limited technical flexibility, but it's the economics that is the deal breaker. So talking about what is possible is hardly relevant. Any attempt to deploy more nuclear in France would have rapidly hit diminishing returns and been financially disastrous.

by pyrale 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Well, yes, that's what I'm saying, and that's what the article says. No, it doesn't. They'd love to be able to say that. The reason they don't say it loudly and clearly is because it's not true. So they have to say lots of things that kind of sound a bit like that if you are not paying attention, because it would be really good for them if it was true. But it's not. France is going to struggle to keep 50% of their power nuclear even with a will to try. So in many ways it does not matter. But so many people say it as a way to, falsely, impugn renewables that I'm standing on the principle. What you claim is true is not true. The document does not claim it, and if it did it would be lying.

pyrale 4y ago
> No, it doesn't. They'd love to be able to say that. The reason they don't say it loudly and clearly is because it's not true. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. The people writing these documents are engineers working at a public company, not members of a secret group trying to wash your brain. All the data they quote can be cross-examined. It doesn't require belief to make one's mind up. > France is going to struggle to keep 50% of their power nuclear even with a will to try. I don't really see how that's related to the load-following ability of nuclear plants.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  They got the data and graphs from this document: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... And put as good a spin on it as they could. But the underlying facts are not great. Figure 1.3 for example, which shows the flexibility of nuclear in France and nuclear is the thing on the chart that varies least, while all the other follow the demand much more closely, especially hydro. Or figure 4.1 where they don't bother going below 60% usage as the price for nuclear would just keep rising, and it's out of design range for most of them anyway. As that document makes clear, nuclear has limited technical flexibility, but it's the economics that is the deal breaker. So talking about what is possible is hardly relevant. Any attempt to deploy more nuclear in France would have rapidly hit diminishing returns and been financially disastrous.