5 ms·

Nuclear is almost as non-dispatchable? As soon as you've ramped up a nuclear reactor to full power, the weather has changed. Thus they essentially occupy almost

by hkwerf 2y ago

Nuclear is almost as non-dispatchable? As soon as you've ramped up a nuclear reactor to full power, the weather has changed. Thus they essentially occupy almost the same niche. Those who plan to use both nuclear and wind/solar don't do it for the dispatchability.

mpweiher 2y ago
> Nuclear is almost as non-dispatchable? That turns out not to be completely not the case. As in not even close. First, modern nuclear power plants can do load-following just fine, you often just don't want to because their variable costs are so low that it just makes more sense to keep them running. Second, the problem with intermittent renewables is that they can't provide power when you need it. Even when you don't load-follow as much, that is not the problem of nuclear. > As soon as you've ramped up a nuclear reactor to full power, the weather has changed That's a problem of the intermittent renewables, not of nuclear. You don't make the clown-energy the primary and force everything else to adapt to that. > Those who plan to use both nuclear and wind/solar don't do it for the dispatchability. Yeah they do. Dispatchability in terms of grid demand, not in terms of compensating for intermittency.
- hkwerf 2y ago
  > First, modern nuclear power plants can do load-following just fine, you often just don't want to because their variable costs are so low that it just makes more sense to keep them running. So, I read a bit and this seems to be actually true, just looking at it from a technical feasibility standpoint [1]. (This is actually the first time someone refuted this point when I made it. ;) ) > Second, the problem with intermittent renewables is that they can't provide power when you need it. Even when you don't load-follow as much, that is not the problem of nuclear. I didn't say they were, though, and this is not an argument regarding your premise. > Yeah they do. Dispatchability in terms of grid demand, not in terms of compensating for intermittency. From a technical standpoint that is true, but, as you've mentioned above: Load-following is not something you can do with nuclear, as the LCOE then quickly meets the other sources of energy ([1], chapter 4). > That's a problem of the intermittent renewables, not of nuclear. You don't make the clown-energy the primary and force everything else to adapt to that. Yeah, it's just that that the grid does not end at the gate of the nuclear power plant. Maybe a bit less snark would be helpful in a discussion that can be had based on available data. Referring to solar and wind as clown-energy essentially ends all discussion. Otherwise, people could also bring up arguments such as the limited availability of fuel and the fact that thermal energy generation itself would become a driving factor for global warming if we would still depend on it by the end of the century. [1] 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...
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > I didn't say there were. Yeah, you kind of did: "Nuclear is almost as non-dispatchable?" That "almost as" implies not just similarity in degree (which we saw isn't true), but even greater similarity in kind, because otherwise the two are just not comparable in the first place. "My iPad M4 is almost as fast as a Ferrari" doesn't really make sense, except as humor. > limited availability of fuel Not true. > the fact that thermal energy generation itself would become a driving factor for global warming Also not true.

by hkwerf 2y ago

mpweiher 2y ago

> Nuclear is almost as non-dispatchable? That turns out not to be completely not the case. As in not even close. First, modern nuclear power plants can do load-following just fine, you often just don't want to because their variable costs are so low that it just makes more sense to keep them running. Second, the problem with intermittent renewables is that they can't provide power when you need it. Even when you don't load-follow as much, that is not the problem of nuclear. > As soon as you've ramped up a nuclear reactor to full power, the weather has changed That's a problem of the intermittent renewables, not of nuclear. You don't make the clown-energy the primary and force everything else to adapt to that. > Those who plan to use both nuclear and wind/solar don't do it for the dispatchability. Yeah they do. Dispatchability in terms of grid demand, not in terms of compensating for intermittency.

hkwerf 2y ago
> First, modern nuclear power plants can do load-following just fine, you often just don't want to because their variable costs are so low that it just makes more sense to keep them running. So, I read a bit and this seems to be actually true, just looking at it from a technical feasibility standpoint [1]. (This is actually the first time someone refuted this point when I made it. ;) ) > Second, the problem with intermittent renewables is that they can't provide power when you need it. Even when you don't load-follow as much, that is not the problem of nuclear. I didn't say they were, though, and this is not an argument regarding your premise. > Yeah they do. Dispatchability in terms of grid demand, not in terms of compensating for intermittency. From a technical standpoint that is true, but, as you've mentioned above: Load-following is not something you can do with nuclear, as the LCOE then quickly meets the other sources of energy ([1], chapter 4). > That's a problem of the intermittent renewables, not of nuclear. You don't make the clown-energy the primary and force everything else to adapt to that. Yeah, it's just that that the grid does not end at the gate of the nuclear power plant. Maybe a bit less snark would be helpful in a discussion that can be had based on available data. Referring to solar and wind as clown-energy essentially ends all discussion. Otherwise, people could also bring up arguments such as the limited availability of fuel and the fact that thermal energy generation itself would become a driving factor for global warming if we would still depend on it by the end of the century. [1] 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...
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > I didn't say there were. Yeah, you kind of did: "Nuclear is almost as non-dispatchable?" That "almost as" implies not just similarity in degree (which we saw isn't true), but even greater similarity in kind, because otherwise the two are just not comparable in the first place. "My iPad M4 is almost as fast as a Ferrari" doesn't really make sense, except as humor. > limited availability of fuel Not true. > the fact that thermal energy generation itself would become a driving factor for global warming Also not true.