3 ms·

The current trend is moving from "baseload and peaker" to "renewables and firming". Peaker and firming are both traditionally gas. If you think that renewable

The current trend is moving from "baseload and peaker" to "renewables and firming". Peaker and firming are both traditionally gas. If you think that renewables have an inherent need for expensive storage then you're holding them to a higher standard than nuclear. This is both inaccurate and ahistorical given all the pumped hydro built specifically to complement nuclear. Though the continued reduction in price of renewables and batteries means they probably already meet and exceed your higher standard anyway (see the recent Fraunhofer report that solar and batteries were cheaper than gas in Germany).

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> If you think that renewables have an inherent need for expensive storage then you're holding them to a higher standard than nuclear. This is both inaccurate and ahistorical given all the pumped hydro built specifically to complement nuclear. It's a different kind of storage. Nuclear generates the same amount of electricity all the time but then there is higher demand during certain parts of the day. You then make up the difference between the baseload and the peak with a different kind of power plant. Typically nuclear is not used with storage at all, it's instead used for baseload with the peaks handled by other types of primary generation, traditionally natural gas or non-pumped hydro that dams a river. Renewables have entirely variable output, so you need alternative generation with enough capacity to supply the whole grid at any given time, and enough storage to be able to do this for a week or more in the event that renewable generation is low for an extended period of time. It's the difference between building a grid which is half nuclear and half something else vs. fully duplicating the whole capacity of the grid.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  In California the lowest yearly demand is ~13 GW. The yearly peak is ~48 GW. Assume that 3 reactors at a time are in revision during the spring and autumn. This means the "base demand" is 16 GW. I don't see a material difference in handling 32 GW or 48 GW of dispatchable power generation, assuming the lowest possible renewable generation is zero for the renewable side (which is not the case.) The other option would be having more nuclear plants and turning them off for large parts of the year. That is incredibly expensive. All this entails forcing the customers to pay for more expensive nuclear energy rather than utilize cheaper energy when it is available. In reality the more expensive nuclear power plants are turned off. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-prices-negative-france-solar-panel-wind-renewable-nuclear-green-2024-6 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-...
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    You're using the instantaneous numbers, which matters for the peak (because if you hit 48 GW for just one hour you still have to meet the demand) but not the trough (because having overcapacity for a negligible number of hours a year is fine). The real base demand number for California is ~24 GW: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 Which is a pretty sizable fraction of 48 (not that 16 wasn't). > The other option would be having more nuclear plants and turning them off for large parts of the year. Nobody is going to do this. It doesn't make sense to build entirely nuclear plants. It does make sense to build some more than we have now.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      That is the average base demand over a year. Meaning for about half the year it will be less and you have to shut down parts of the nuclear fleet. Either way, solving a 24 GW or 35 GW on top of ~20 GW something base is about as easy. Nuclear simply does not fit modern grids. > Nobody is going to do this. It doesn't make sense to build entirely nuclear plants. It does make sense to build some more than we have now. Exactly. Which is why nuclear power does not fit modern grids, because they will be required to shut down. As is seen time and time again in Europe when no one wants their expensive energy.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > That is the average base demand over a year. Then it's not clear where you came up with 13 GW, which is inconsistent with the ~24 GW from the Department of Energy. > Either way, solving a 24 GW or 35 GW on top of ~20 GW something base is about as easy. Needing 48GW instead of 24GW would literally double the cost, on top of doubling the cost of renewable generation since you'd need an average of 48GW of that instead of 24 to avoid regular use of a backup system which is presumably fossil fuels. That is not a small difference. > Which is why nuclear power does not fit modern grids, because they will be required to shut down. There is no point at which they shut down. They provide baseload. You get 24 GW from nuclear, which is the minimum load on the grid. If you also get something from renewables at this time, that's when you charge your batteries for later. This won't get you a week but allows you to do peak shaving. If the load is 48GW and you get 24GW from nuclear and 24GW from renewables, everything is fine. If the load is 48GW and you get 24GW from nuclear and anything less from renewables, now you discharge the batteries. And then you only need 24 GW of peaker plants in the event that the batteries are dead and current load exceeds current generation.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  I thought I'd neatly encapsulated this with the "baseload and peaking to renewables and firming" slogan but since it appears we need greater depth: Typically nuclear/renewables is not used with storage at all, it's instead used for baseload/cheap-n-clean-load with the peaks/firming handled by other types of primary generation, traditionally natural gas or non-pumped hydro that dams a river. Nuclear can trip out in seconds or be put offline by fault investigations or fuel reloading, so you need alternative generation with enough capacity to supply the whole grid at any given time, and enough storage and or firming to be able to do this for a week or more in the event that nuclear generation is low for an extended period of time (like France the other year).
  - belorn 2y ago
    Looking at this from a historical perspective, Nuclear with other types of primary generation did not generate a highly variable grid. Its a recent phenomena in Europe that has caused spot prices jumps from negative to 2$ per kWh, which the primary blame being put in volatile energy production. If we are claiming that nuclear is similar to renewables, we should expect regions where nuclear is being decommissioned to have an increase in renewables with no increase in natural gas consumption. This is however not the case. This has been demonstrated by the decommissions of nuclear plants in Germany and Sweden, with fossil fuel emissions being increased as a direct results. To take Sweden as an in-depth example, after the decommission of their south based nuclear power plant the two major natural gas plants in the region went from operating a few times a year to running almost 24/7, only shutting down briefly during optimal weather conditions. They are now the highest source of pollution in that region, and more natural gas plants are being planned for construction. As a result the government funding for the "reserve energy" has increased significantly (ie, fossil fuel subsidies).
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Germany's gas generation has indeed been flat while nuclear and coal is being phased out, so I guess you've very strongly proved my point. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=1999..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... I'm also not seeing your claimed Swedish impact in the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=1999..latest&country=SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Also worth bearing in mind that support payments generally are used to keep fossil plants open because they no longer burn enough fossil fuels to earn a profit from energy sales. It's an insurance policy which needn't ever burn any fuel to be worthwhile.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> If you think that renewables have an inherent need for expensive storage then you're holding them to a higher standard than nuclear. This is both inaccurate and ahistorical given all the pumped hydro built specifically to complement nuclear. It's a different kind of storage. Nuclear generates the same amount of electricity all the time but then there is higher demand during certain parts of the day. You then make up the difference between the baseload and the peak with a different kind of power plant. Typically nuclear is not used with storage at all, it's instead used for baseload with the peaks handled by other types of primary generation, traditionally natural gas or non-pumped hydro that dams a river. Renewables have entirely variable output, so you need alternative generation with enough capacity to supply the whole grid at any given time, and enough storage to be able to do this for a week or more in the event that renewable generation is low for an extended period of time. It's the difference between building a grid which is half nuclear and half something else vs. fully duplicating the whole capacity of the grid.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
In California the lowest yearly demand is ~13 GW. The yearly peak is ~48 GW. Assume that 3 reactors at a time are in revision during the spring and autumn. This means the "base demand" is 16 GW. I don't see a material difference in handling 32 GW or 48 GW of dispatchable power generation, assuming the lowest possible renewable generation is zero for the renewable side (which is not the case.) The other option would be having more nuclear plants and turning them off for large parts of the year. That is incredibly expensive. All this entails forcing the customers to pay for more expensive nuclear energy rather than utilize cheaper energy when it is available. In reality the more expensive nuclear power plants are turned off. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-prices-negative-france-solar-panel-wind-renewable-nuclear-green-2024-6 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-...
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You're using the instantaneous numbers, which matters for the peak (because if you hit 48 GW for just one hour you still have to meet the demand) but not the trough (because having overcapacity for a negligible number of hours a year is fine). The real base demand number for California is ~24 GW: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 Which is a pretty sizable fraction of 48 (not that 16 wasn't). > The other option would be having more nuclear plants and turning them off for large parts of the year. Nobody is going to do this. It doesn't make sense to build entirely nuclear plants. It does make sense to build some more than we have now.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    That is the average base demand over a year. Meaning for about half the year it will be less and you have to shut down parts of the nuclear fleet. Either way, solving a 24 GW or 35 GW on top of ~20 GW something base is about as easy. Nuclear simply does not fit modern grids. > Nobody is going to do this. It doesn't make sense to build entirely nuclear plants. It does make sense to build some more than we have now. Exactly. Which is why nuclear power does not fit modern grids, because they will be required to shut down. As is seen time and time again in Europe when no one wants their expensive energy.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > That is the average base demand over a year. Then it's not clear where you came up with 13 GW, which is inconsistent with the ~24 GW from the Department of Energy. > Either way, solving a 24 GW or 35 GW on top of ~20 GW something base is about as easy. Needing 48GW instead of 24GW would literally double the cost, on top of doubling the cost of renewable generation since you'd need an average of 48GW of that instead of 24 to avoid regular use of a backup system which is presumably fossil fuels. That is not a small difference. > Which is why nuclear power does not fit modern grids, because they will be required to shut down. There is no point at which they shut down. They provide baseload. You get 24 GW from nuclear, which is the minimum load on the grid. If you also get something from renewables at this time, that's when you charge your batteries for later. This won't get you a week but allows you to do peak shaving. If the load is 48GW and you get 24GW from nuclear and 24GW from renewables, everything is fine. If the load is 48GW and you get 24GW from nuclear and anything less from renewables, now you discharge the batteries. And then you only need 24 GW of peaker plants in the event that the batteries are dead and current load exceeds current generation.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
I thought I'd neatly encapsulated this with the "baseload and peaking to renewables and firming" slogan but since it appears we need greater depth: Typically nuclear/renewables is not used with storage at all, it's instead used for baseload/cheap-n-clean-load with the peaks/firming handled by other types of primary generation, traditionally natural gas or non-pumped hydro that dams a river. Nuclear can trip out in seconds or be put offline by fault investigations or fuel reloading, so you need alternative generation with enough capacity to supply the whole grid at any given time, and enough storage and or firming to be able to do this for a week or more in the event that nuclear generation is low for an extended period of time (like France the other year).
- belorn 2y ago
  Looking at this from a historical perspective, Nuclear with other types of primary generation did not generate a highly variable grid. Its a recent phenomena in Europe that has caused spot prices jumps from negative to 2$ per kWh, which the primary blame being put in volatile energy production. If we are claiming that nuclear is similar to renewables, we should expect regions where nuclear is being decommissioned to have an increase in renewables with no increase in natural gas consumption. This is however not the case. This has been demonstrated by the decommissions of nuclear plants in Germany and Sweden, with fossil fuel emissions being increased as a direct results. To take Sweden as an in-depth example, after the decommission of their south based nuclear power plant the two major natural gas plants in the region went from operating a few times a year to running almost 24/7, only shutting down briefly during optimal weather conditions. They are now the highest source of pollution in that region, and more natural gas plants are being planned for construction. As a result the government funding for the "reserve energy" has increased significantly (ie, fossil fuel subsidies).
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Germany's gas generation has indeed been flat while nuclear and coal is being phased out, so I guess you've very strongly proved my point. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=1999..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... I'm also not seeing your claimed Swedish impact in the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=1999..latest&country=SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Also worth bearing in mind that support payments generally are used to keep fossil plants open because they no longer burn enough fossil fuels to earn a profit from energy sales. It's an insurance policy which needn't ever burn any fuel to be worthwhile.