5 ms·

I don't object to using nuclear for grid power, but it's really not a great complement for solar and wind. What you want to complement those variable sources

I don't object to using nuclear for grid power, but it's really not a great complement for solar and wind. What you want to complement those variable sources is something that ramps up and down easily, when you hit extended reduced production periods in the variable sources. Something like nuclear, which is inherently a baseline source, which has basically no storage utility, and which is already far more expensive per unit of energy produced, even when run at high utilization, misses the boat.

timerol 4y ago
Nuclear is very bad at ramping all of the way off, but NuScale's reactors can go from full power to 25% of output power in 1 hour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--FAVoAQvk&t=59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--FAVoAQvk&t=59s Nuclear power is used as base load because of economics, not physics or regulations. France's nuclear fleet is used for load-following. See "Load-following with PWR nuclear plants" in https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr.... (SMRs are easier to use for load-following, since you enable and disable reactors, as opposed to using the "grey control rods" mentioned in the linked article.)
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Technical ability to ramp is not the issue, it's the economic cost of ramping. A nuclear plant must operate with as high a capacity factor as possible or else the cost per kWh inflates. Almost all the costs are fixed.
  - walnutclosefarm 4y ago
    Exactly. To be useful to fill the dips in renewal production, you have to run your the baseline contribution of nuclear at a low power, so you've got headroom to expand into when needed. That makes nuclear kwh, already inherently expensive, prohibitively so.
loeg 4y ago
> it's really not a great complement for solar and wind. I mean, vice versa: volatile wind and solar are not a good match for demand.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  A renewable heavy grid leaves no place for nuclear. Renewable looks at nuclear and says "This is not a 'me' problem, this is a 'you' problem."
  - loeg 4y ago
    And vice versa, right? That's the problem and source of conflict between nuclear and solar/wind advocates.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      No, not vice versa, because people are buying and installing the renewables. It's the nuclear people who are complaining. Talk to the hand, nuclear stan.
- walnutclosefarm 4y ago
  Yep. And if nuclear advocates had a plausible story about what a path to zero-carbon, nuclear powered grid that produces affordable power, deals with its own waste issue, and doesn't scare the shit out of the population, we should be looking at that as an option. Seen any evidence of that? I haven't.
locallost 4y ago
The true reason why nuclear does not ramp up and down easily is that you need to run it all the time to make it even remotely economical. Otherwise it won't recoup the upfront costs even in 50 years.

timerol 4y ago

Nuclear is very bad at ramping all of the way off, but NuScale's reactors can go from full power to 25% of output power in 1 hour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--FAVoAQvk&t=59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--FAVoAQvk&t=59s Nuclear power is used as base load because of economics, not physics or regulations. France's nuclear fleet is used for load-following. See "Load-following with PWR nuclear plants" in https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr.... (SMRs are easier to use for load-following, since you enable and disable reactors, as opposed to using the "grey control rods" mentioned in the linked article.)

pfdietz 4y ago
Technical ability to ramp is not the issue, it's the economic cost of ramping. A nuclear plant must operate with as high a capacity factor as possible or else the cost per kWh inflates. Almost all the costs are fixed.
- walnutclosefarm 4y ago
  Exactly. To be useful to fill the dips in renewal production, you have to run your the baseline contribution of nuclear at a low power, so you've got headroom to expand into when needed. That makes nuclear kwh, already inherently expensive, prohibitively so.

loeg 4y ago

> it's really not a great complement for solar and wind. I mean, vice versa: volatile wind and solar are not a good match for demand.

pfdietz 4y ago
A renewable heavy grid leaves no place for nuclear. Renewable looks at nuclear and says "This is not a 'me' problem, this is a 'you' problem."
- loeg 4y ago
  And vice versa, right? That's the problem and source of conflict between nuclear and solar/wind advocates.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    No, not vice versa, because people are buying and installing the renewables. It's the nuclear people who are complaining. Talk to the hand, nuclear stan.
walnutclosefarm 4y ago
Yep. And if nuclear advocates had a plausible story about what a path to zero-carbon, nuclear powered grid that produces affordable power, deals with its own waste issue, and doesn't scare the shit out of the population, we should be looking at that as an option. Seen any evidence of that? I haven't.

locallost 4y ago

The true reason why nuclear does not ramp up and down easily is that you need to run it all the time to make it even remotely economical. Otherwise it won't recoup the upfront costs even in 50 years.