3 ms·
> 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 the
by 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 agoThey 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.