4 ms·

People always forget that a mostly nuclear grid also require a some kind of storage or demand scalability.

adrianN 2y ago
With nuclear you have the option of running the reactors at 50% peak and produce energy at approximately twice the cost per kWh.
- ta1243 2y ago
  That's it. If you need to have nuclear capacity for a grid for say 30GW, despite average usage being just 10GW, your price is now $300/MWh rather than $100/MWh if you can run them 24/7
cm2187 2y ago
Why? All modern nuclear reactors do load following. I believe it’s even an EU requirement. And certainly the practice in France. Nuclear costs the same thing whether you use it or not. If you meet the peak energy demand with nuclear you might as well save the construction of intermittent renewables.
- ta1243 2y ago
  Meeting peak demand with Nuclear (including the maintenance time) increases the cost of nuclear to even higher levels than it currently is.
- adrianN 2y ago
  Yeah nuclear costs the same, that’s the point. If you overbuild by two or three x to meet peak demand then per kWh you pay two to three times as much.
  - p_l 2y ago
    Honestly a big issue in my view is that we don't have more dynamic sinks. Let's overbuild a mix of renewables and nuclear, then use the excess power to do things like green hydrogen. Or maybe we will find other uses when electricity becomes too cheap to meter.
    - adrianN 2y ago
      Doing that is part of the plan for the switch to renewables, and people are actively working on it. A friend of mine at Siemens energy for example is involved in such projects.
      - p_l 2y ago
        Yes, there are people working on that. Unfortunately they aren't the people who drive energy policy in practice or who fund new generation (most of the time, at least). From capitalist point of view, it's always easier to turn profit by market speculation[1], with providing gas turbine backup second. [1] I work for considerably big wind power company building off shore wind turbines. Our main revenue source is market speculation :<

With nuclear you have the option of running the reactors at 50% peak and produce energy at approximately twice the cost per kWh.

ta1243 2y ago
That's it. If you need to have nuclear capacity for a grid for say 30GW, despite average usage being just 10GW, your price is now $300/MWh rather than $100/MWh if you can run them 24/7

cm2187 2y ago

Why? All modern nuclear reactors do load following. I believe it’s even an EU requirement. And certainly the practice in France. Nuclear costs the same thing whether you use it or not. If you meet the peak energy demand with nuclear you might as well save the construction of intermittent renewables.

ta1243 2y ago
Meeting peak demand with Nuclear (including the maintenance time) increases the cost of nuclear to even higher levels than it currently is.
adrianN 2y ago
Yeah nuclear costs the same, that’s the point. If you overbuild by two or three x to meet peak demand then per kWh you pay two to three times as much.
- p_l 2y ago
  Honestly a big issue in my view is that we don't have more dynamic sinks. Let's overbuild a mix of renewables and nuclear, then use the excess power to do things like green hydrogen. Or maybe we will find other uses when electricity becomes too cheap to meter.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Doing that is part of the plan for the switch to renewables, and people are actively working on it. A friend of mine at Siemens energy for example is involved in such projects.
    - p_l 2y ago
      Yes, there are people working on that. Unfortunately they aren't the people who drive energy policy in practice or who fund new generation (most of the time, at least). From capitalist point of view, it's always easier to turn profit by market speculation[1], with providing gas turbine backup second. [1] I work for considerably big wind power company building off shore wind turbines. Our main revenue source is market speculation :<