4 ms·

Nuclear power factor is often lowered in Europe to not waste solar/wind energy. The commenter I was replying to mentioned installed capacity, which is mislead

by Kuinox 3y ago

Nuclear power factor is often lowered in Europe to not waste solar/wind energy. The commenter I was replying to mentioned installed capacity, which is misleading.

Retric 3y ago
Nuclear’s biggest issue is the demand curve. France was getting ~68-72% before wind and solar was a thing because the demand was just that low on nights and weekends even with significant exports. Which is why most countries that under 30% of total electricity, but renewables are likely to push this even lower even if you prioritize nuclear over renewables simply due to differences in cost.
- shagie 3y ago
  You can see an example of this with Germany and a comparison of 2012 and 2020 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Renewables_need_flexible_backup_not_baseload.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Renewabl... In 2012, nuclear was a fairly consistent... eyeballing it at 10% of the load. With 2020 there's no nuclear and pumped storage becomes the flexible load while solar has a much larger portion of the total load. If 2020 had the base load generation from nuclear, that sunny Sunday would have caused some problems. And an old article about wind and hydro and managing that energy balance on the Columbia River - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/?sh=13563084222b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-s... > The enormous supply of hydroelectricity during spring runoff can push electricity prices to zero—the BPA gives away electricity to local utilities for free when it’s forced to produce more than it wants to. Since wind producers enjoy production subsidies, they can push rates below zero, effectively paying other utilities to switch off their generators. Last winter, the BPA told wind producers under its balancing authority that it wouldn’t pay negative rates to them during high-water events. (In this example, they could put more water over the spillway to reduce the power generation so that wind wouldn't have to idle... but that would have meant mixing more air in the water and that can suffocate the fish and impact the salmon fishery in Oregon - https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/tmdls/pages/tmdls-columbia-river.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/tmdls/pages/tmdls-columbia-riv... and https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/0203004.pdf https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/0203004.p... pages 13-15)
- Kuinox 3y ago
  A plant following the demand curve is called a load-following power plant, and France's NPP are quite good at it, but most recent EU NPP should be able to do it. > According to the current version of the European Utility Requirements (EUR) the NPP must be capable of a minimum daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100% P r, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% P r /minute. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-lo... > France in particular has a long history of utilizing aggressive load following with their PWRs [...] These reactors have the capability to regularly vary their output between 30–100% of rated power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuc...
  - Retric 3y ago
    Load following Nuclear costs more per kWh because you’re getting less energy when the capacity factor drops and as is often said fuel isn’t the largest cost for nuclear. So you still need to pay just as much for for salaries, maintenance, construction, decommissioning etc when output is 10% or 100%. But you also need a more complex design with higher inherent costs.
    - Kuinox 3y ago
      If you switch off the solar panels instead, it will be the solar panels that costs more.
      - Retric 3y ago
        It’s a percentage increase so the vastly lower price per kWh of solar remains. Which is why everyone wants to use Solar to charge batteries, but nobody suggests that for nuclear even though it has similar issues just at different times of the day. Also, when given the option your better off reducing nuclear as it does have fuel costs.

by Kuinox 3y ago

Nuclear power factor is often lowered in Europe to not waste solar/wind energy. The commenter I was replying to mentioned installed capacity, which is misleading.

Retric 3y ago

Nuclear’s biggest issue is the demand curve. France was getting ~68-72% before wind and solar was a thing because the demand was just that low on nights and weekends even with significant exports. Which is why most countries that under 30% of total electricity, but renewables are likely to push this even lower even if you prioritize nuclear over renewables simply due to differences in cost.

shagie 3y ago
You can see an example of this with Germany and a comparison of 2012 and 2020 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Renewables_need_flexible_backup_not_baseload.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Renewabl... In 2012, nuclear was a fairly consistent... eyeballing it at 10% of the load. With 2020 there's no nuclear and pumped storage becomes the flexible load while solar has a much larger portion of the total load. If 2020 had the base load generation from nuclear, that sunny Sunday would have caused some problems. And an old article about wind and hydro and managing that energy balance on the Columbia River - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/?sh=13563084222b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-s... > The enormous supply of hydroelectricity during spring runoff can push electricity prices to zero—the BPA gives away electricity to local utilities for free when it’s forced to produce more than it wants to. Since wind producers enjoy production subsidies, they can push rates below zero, effectively paying other utilities to switch off their generators. Last winter, the BPA told wind producers under its balancing authority that it wouldn’t pay negative rates to them during high-water events. (In this example, they could put more water over the spillway to reduce the power generation so that wind wouldn't have to idle... but that would have meant mixing more air in the water and that can suffocate the fish and impact the salmon fishery in Oregon - https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/tmdls/pages/tmdls-columbia-river.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/tmdls/pages/tmdls-columbia-riv... and https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/0203004.pdf https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/0203004.p... pages 13-15)
Kuinox 3y ago
A plant following the demand curve is called a load-following power plant, and France's NPP are quite good at it, but most recent EU NPP should be able to do it. > According to the current version of the European Utility Requirements (EUR) the NPP must be capable of a minimum daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100% P r, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% P r /minute. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-lo... > France in particular has a long history of utilizing aggressive load following with their PWRs [...] These reactors have the capability to regularly vary their output between 30–100% of rated power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuc...
- Retric 3y ago
  Load following Nuclear costs more per kWh because you’re getting less energy when the capacity factor drops and as is often said fuel isn’t the largest cost for nuclear. So you still need to pay just as much for for salaries, maintenance, construction, decommissioning etc when output is 10% or 100%. But you also need a more complex design with higher inherent costs.
  - Kuinox 3y ago
    If you switch off the solar panels instead, it will be the solar panels that costs more.
    - Retric 3y ago
      It’s a percentage increase so the vastly lower price per kWh of solar remains. Which is why everyone wants to use Solar to charge batteries, but nobody suggests that for nuclear even though it has similar issues just at different times of the day. Also, when given the option your better off reducing nuclear as it does have fuel costs.