6 ms·

Nuclear doesn't need any storage because the power is generated continuously at the same pace. On the other hand, there's no sun during the night and wind stren

Nuclear doesn't need any storage because the power is generated continuously at the same pace. On the other hand, there's no sun during the night and wind strength is variable and cannot always be harnessed. If you want to have all the power generated by renewable, you would need big enough storage to hold all the power consumption during the highest peaks - like really hot summer nights where everyone is running AC at maximum. And it tends to cost quite a lot to have a giant UPS. And, because we need power 24/7, you need to have that in a redundant fashion, which basically boils down to two giant UPS systems in the gigawatt range. And I have this feeling that doing this is very dirty and very expensive to build and maintain.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
Demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs.
- illiarian 4y ago
  > Demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs. Of course it can. 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... --- start quote --- Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors are designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. they participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. ... according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power P. with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of P, per minute. Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% P, per minute. (Where P is rated power) --- end quote ---
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    So you're overbuilding nuclear, and then throwing the extra power away when you don't need it with (at best) no savings on fuel or running costs? That doesn't sound cheap. Wouldn't it make sense to take some of that power and make hydrogen or something that can be stored for later peaks? Then maybe you can close the nuclear plant you only turn on 1% of the time and fill that peak with hydrogen instead and save a lot of money. Maybe offer cheap rates at night so EV users fill up on cheap nuclear power when it's available. Or store heat in water tanks or brick. Or use some of that power to pump water uphill like nuclear plants have been doing for half a century already. You could do like France and schedule refueling during the summer when the demand is lower and taking a plant offline has less impact. Lots of boring sensible things you can do to match nuclear supply to demand. But of course if you admit these things exist, it kind of puts a big hole in your argument, so best to pretend they don't happen and are only needed for renewables.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > So you're overbuilding nuclear So are complaining about changing demand or about overbuilding? > Wouldn't it make sense to take some of that power and make hydrogen or something that can be stored for later peaks? Yes, you could probably do that if any if those solutions scaled in any meaningful shape or form. > But of course if you admit these things exist, it kind of puts a big hole in your argument My argument was that your claim that "demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs" is a lie. None of the weird tangent you went off on makes a hole in this argument: nuclear power can scale quickly and is literally used to do that right now. The fact that it isn't used for something that you want it used for is completely orthogonal to whether it can be scaled or not. For example, no one stores nuclear power in hydrogen or whatever because it's literally not needed because nuclear power can be scaled quickly on demand.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        > My argument was that your claim that "demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs" is a lie. That was someone else's argument, and the second part is kind of irrelevant, but it's also true. The speed that Nuclear can ramp, even in the best case is not enough to match demand spikes. It doesn't ramp as fast as gas plants and gas plants don't ramp as fast as batteries. So even if you ramp nuclear, at an increased cost, you still need gas or batteries or hydro for fast ramps. So you might as well use the power you ramp down to fill batteries, make syngas or hydrogen or fill pumped storage. Just like you'd do with excess renewables.
- ExoticPearTree 4y ago
  What I said was the Nuclear can run at 100% all the time to account for peaks with little to no impact on the amount of nuclear fuel used. I see it as a super win.
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
but demand isn't flat.
- illiarian 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35441549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35441549
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    right, but that means you still have to over-build capacity
    - illiarian 4y ago
      So are you complaining about changing demand? Or about overbuilding? Note: it's much easier to "overbuild" nuclear because nothing can compare to it in terms of power density.

HDThoreaun 4y ago

Demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs.

illiarian 4y ago
> Demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs. Of course it can. 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... --- start quote --- Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors are designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. they participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. ... according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power P. with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of P, per minute. Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% P, per minute. (Where P is rated power) --- end quote ---
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  So you're overbuilding nuclear, and then throwing the extra power away when you don't need it with (at best) no savings on fuel or running costs? That doesn't sound cheap. Wouldn't it make sense to take some of that power and make hydrogen or something that can be stored for later peaks? Then maybe you can close the nuclear plant you only turn on 1% of the time and fill that peak with hydrogen instead and save a lot of money. Maybe offer cheap rates at night so EV users fill up on cheap nuclear power when it's available. Or store heat in water tanks or brick. Or use some of that power to pump water uphill like nuclear plants have been doing for half a century already. You could do like France and schedule refueling during the summer when the demand is lower and taking a plant offline has less impact. Lots of boring sensible things you can do to match nuclear supply to demand. But of course if you admit these things exist, it kind of puts a big hole in your argument, so best to pretend they don't happen and are only needed for renewables.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > So you're overbuilding nuclear So are complaining about changing demand or about overbuilding? > Wouldn't it make sense to take some of that power and make hydrogen or something that can be stored for later peaks? Yes, you could probably do that if any if those solutions scaled in any meaningful shape or form. > But of course if you admit these things exist, it kind of puts a big hole in your argument My argument was that your claim that "demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs" is a lie. None of the weird tangent you went off on makes a hole in this argument: nuclear power can scale quickly and is literally used to do that right now. The fact that it isn't used for something that you want it used for is completely orthogonal to whether it can be scaled or not. For example, no one stores nuclear power in hydrogen or whatever because it's literally not needed because nuclear power can be scaled quickly on demand.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > My argument was that your claim that "demand isn't flat and nuclear can't scale quickly enough to meet the daily peaks and troughs" is a lie. That was someone else's argument, and the second part is kind of irrelevant, but it's also true. The speed that Nuclear can ramp, even in the best case is not enough to match demand spikes. It doesn't ramp as fast as gas plants and gas plants don't ramp as fast as batteries. So even if you ramp nuclear, at an increased cost, you still need gas or batteries or hydro for fast ramps. So you might as well use the power you ramp down to fill batteries, make syngas or hydrogen or fill pumped storage. Just like you'd do with excess renewables.
ExoticPearTree 4y ago
What I said was the Nuclear can run at 100% all the time to account for peaks with little to no impact on the amount of nuclear fuel used. I see it as a super win.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

but demand isn't flat.

illiarian 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35441549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35441549
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  right, but that means you still have to over-build capacity
  - illiarian 4y ago
    So are you complaining about changing demand? Or about overbuilding? Note: it's much easier to "overbuild" nuclear because nothing can compare to it in terms of power density.