3 ms·

> Private companies are requesting the records of CECOEL conversation to be published, some have leaked their logs. In one of those, REE technicians readily adm

> Private companies are requesting the records of CECOEL conversation to be published, some have leaked their logs. In one of those, REE technicians readily admit that oscilations are caused by not enough nuclear in the mix. And where are those leaks, if one may ask? French-side the only generation station that actually was ejected from the network that day was, precisely, a nuclear power plant. [1] A non-specific "moar nuclear!" cry seems therefore a bit hard to believe. [1] https://www.edf.fr/la-centrale-nucleaire-de-golfech/les-actualites-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-de-golfech/actualite-de-l-unite-de-production-ndeg1 https://www.edf.fr/la-centrale-nucleaire-de-golfech/les-actu...

Etheryte 1y ago
This doesn't make the point you think it makes. Nuclear power plants are supposed to go offline in unstable grid conditions. This ensures they don't overheat, equipment isn't damaged, and that they can be taken offline in a safe, rather than unsafe manner.
- AshamedCaptain 1y ago
  Your point is not really a point either: every power plant can be ejected from the network in such cases, and not just nuclear ones. The remark here is that it precisely happened to a nuclear first.
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    Nuclear can't ramp up or down fast. As the grid loses generation capacity the load on the base-load type capacity becomes too variable and that capacity has to be brought offline. It's that simple. Nuclear wasn't ejected because there was too much of it but because there was not enough capacity of all types, especially of the gas-fired type that can most readily respond to solar and wind drop-off.
    - AshamedCaptain 1y ago
      My point is "moar nuclear" guarantees nothing as evidenced by what happened _in France_ (hint: not exactly the same as in Spain even if same underlying direct cause). Your remark, at best, only adds to my point, and is not a counterargument to mine. And for the record, very few power stations can ramp up "fast" or "down" for the level required here -- this is not something that uniquely applies to nuclear. Even oft-quoted gas stations still measure "ramp up" in hours.
cryptonector 1y ago
This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).
- btilly 1y ago
  I would think that a trivial solution for that is to create devices that can supply variable demand. (For example by heating up water somewhere in the ocean.) If the power created by nuclear exceeds base-line demand, create artificial demand to level out the valleys. By strategically wasting power, nuclear can supply a larger share of the demand.
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    That's the point of batteries, yes. They don't have to be chemical batteries. Sand (heated to charge, heat extracted to discharge) works too.
  - brewtide 1y ago
    I know it's a shamed topic around here, or it seems like it, however I find the Bitcoin mining aspect of chewing up these "needed to be wasted" loads the one true positive of it (Bitcoin). Yeah, it's changed from its seeming origins. Yes it's number go up! But being able to turn that extra juice, that NEEDS to go somewhere back into 'cash' is certainly on my list of positives. Obviously, it's lower than batteries and lower or on par with storing as sand/thermal (I guess location and season dependant on this one). One other perk, now that I rant about thermal, is being able to absorb this extra energy, do some calculations and then provide (location/season) heat. Seems like the calculation aspect is the 3 birds one stone, to me.
    - mensetmanusman 1y ago
      I agree, except bitcoin should not be calculating meaningless things. Could have been a large decentralized AI training algorithm for example :)

Etheryte 1y ago

This doesn't make the point you think it makes. Nuclear power plants are supposed to go offline in unstable grid conditions. This ensures they don't overheat, equipment isn't damaged, and that they can be taken offline in a safe, rather than unsafe manner.

AshamedCaptain 1y ago
Your point is not really a point either: every power plant can be ejected from the network in such cases, and not just nuclear ones. The remark here is that it precisely happened to a nuclear first.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  Nuclear can't ramp up or down fast. As the grid loses generation capacity the load on the base-load type capacity becomes too variable and that capacity has to be brought offline. It's that simple. Nuclear wasn't ejected because there was too much of it but because there was not enough capacity of all types, especially of the gas-fired type that can most readily respond to solar and wind drop-off.
  - AshamedCaptain 1y ago
    My point is "moar nuclear" guarantees nothing as evidenced by what happened _in France_ (hint: not exactly the same as in Spain even if same underlying direct cause). Your remark, at best, only adds to my point, and is not a counterargument to mine. And for the record, very few power stations can ramp up "fast" or "down" for the level required here -- this is not something that uniquely applies to nuclear. Even oft-quoted gas stations still measure "ramp up" in hours.

cryptonector 1y ago

This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).

btilly 1y ago
I would think that a trivial solution for that is to create devices that can supply variable demand. (For example by heating up water somewhere in the ocean.) If the power created by nuclear exceeds base-line demand, create artificial demand to level out the valleys. By strategically wasting power, nuclear can supply a larger share of the demand.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  That's the point of batteries, yes. They don't have to be chemical batteries. Sand (heated to charge, heat extracted to discharge) works too.
- brewtide 1y ago
  I know it's a shamed topic around here, or it seems like it, however I find the Bitcoin mining aspect of chewing up these "needed to be wasted" loads the one true positive of it (Bitcoin). Yeah, it's changed from its seeming origins. Yes it's number go up! But being able to turn that extra juice, that NEEDS to go somewhere back into 'cash' is certainly on my list of positives. Obviously, it's lower than batteries and lower or on par with storing as sand/thermal (I guess location and season dependant on this one). One other perk, now that I rant about thermal, is being able to absorb this extra energy, do some calculations and then provide (location/season) heat. Seems like the calculation aspect is the 3 birds one stone, to me.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    I agree, except bitcoin should not be calculating meaningless things. Could have been a large decentralized AI training algorithm for example :)