3 ms·

Nuclear is a very poor complement for solar & wind. To complement solar & wind, you need dispatchable power to supply power while the sun isn't shining and the

Nuclear is a very poor complement for solar & wind. To complement solar & wind, you need dispatchable power to supply power while the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Most nuclear plants can't do that, they need to run 24/7. Some can, but they're horrendously inefficient and expensive to run that way.

coldpie 1y ago
> you need dispatchable power to supply power while the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing Fair. What do you suggest instead?
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  For New York State, right next door to the Hydro electricity abundant Quebec, and with access to trade winds in the Atlantic Ocean? Solar, Wind & Batteries for 97% of power, send the excess to Quebec so they can idle their Hydro while the sun is shining, and then use Quebec Hydro for the last 3%. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-every-hour-of-every-day-is-here-and-it-changes-everything/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    What benefit does Quebec get from idling their hydro power?
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      They idle it while the sun is shining and power is almost worthless, and sell it while it isn't and prices are high.
      - zdragnar 1y ago
        Idling a hydro plant doesn't save them money, though. They're designed for efficient operation, and idling will actually induce more strain on the equipment. There's just no motivation for them to take the excess energy by throttling their own.
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        We're comparing to nuclear here. Yes, it might cost more money to run a hydro plant intermittently. It'll still be cheaper than nuclear.
        throw0101c 1y ago
        > Idling a hydro plant doesn't save them money, though. When you're running you more create wear-and-tear and increase the depreciation rate: this can be costed. There's also probably increased staffing costs during higher levels of operations; also costable. Depending on the prices offered to the hydro-plant, it may or may not be profitable to run.
        olyjohn 1y ago
        Is this true, or are you just assuming here? There are a lot of mechanical things that work better when they are running and used consistency. Sometimes shutting them down and starting them back up, or throttling them actually causes more wear. Even my lawnmower runs more efficiently and has less wear at full throttle. It says right in the manual to run it at full throttle all the time.
sxg 1y ago
Can you clarify? I thought the idea was to run nuclear 24/7 to provide a steady, base rate of power while solar and wind provide complementary power that can be quickly ramped up or down.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  If you need something to supply power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you need it to supply peak power needs, not base power needs. And if nuclear can supply peak power needs, then you might as well just have a grid that is 100% nuclear. If nuclear can't supply peak power needs, then you need batteries or something else to do that. And if you're using batteries, it's a lot cheaper to charge them with solar than with nuclear.
  - preisschild 1y ago
    You are not thinking about the big picture. If just running nuclear power plants 24/7 is cheaper than running Solar/Wind when the weather is perfect and backup/storage when not, then why should we scale solar/wind up that much to begin with?
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      > If just running nuclear power plants 24/7 is cheaper It's not cheaper, it's about 20x as expensive. Running nuclear intermittently is more than 20x as expensive.
      - throw0101c 1y ago
        > It's not cheaper, it's about 20x as expensive. Not according to the Ontario Energy Board, which sets wholesale rates; see Table 2: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2024...
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
ericd 1y ago
I thought that they were quite throttleable, and it was because they needed to run near full power to pencil out economically/amortize their huge capex - that their fuel costs are relatively insignificant by comparison. Is that not the case?
- preisschild 1y ago
  Yes, they definitely can do load following.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Yes, that's what I meant by "but they're horrendously inefficient and expensive to run that way."
  - ericd 1y ago
    Ah ok, sounded to me like there was some big ongoing inefficiency/inability, more than an opportunity cost thing.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  Ya, fuel (uranium) is cheap, capital expenditures are not, so it makes sense to just run it at full bore all the time, even if you could bring it up and down quickly (which you really can’t).
FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
You need continuous baseband generation to keep an electrical grid stable. If not nuclear, then it's going to be coal, gas, hydro, etc. Of the list, nuclear is the cleanest and least ecologicially destructive (by far).
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  DC power sources (aka batteries) with smart inverters are the cheapest and fastest sources of grid stability in 2025t.
  - FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
    The largest battery storage system in use today is 2 orders of magnitude too small to even handle it's local baseband, covers 22 acres, and has already caught fire once. Batteries are decades away from large scale usage. Scale is what will nail you... every time.
    - anon84873628 1y ago
      And with "large scale usage" I'm more worried about battery fires than nuclear meltdowns.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    How large a volume of battery is needed to power nyc if the wind and sun are out for 5 hours? In units of Walmart parking lots please :) (Answer: 10)
    - ben_w 1y ago
      > In units of Walmart parking lots please :) From the pictures I've seen, I assumed those were areas rather than volumes? To put it another way, how high do you stack the batteries?
  - mystified5016 1y ago
    The entire world's supply of lithium batteries in 2024 was (rounding up) 4TWh. In 2024, the USA used 30,000TWh. In December of 2024, we used about 2,500TWh. The entire planet's production capacity of batteries in 2024 would store enough energy to power the USA for 70 minutes. Being generous, this would occupy 3.5 million cubic meters, or (conveniently) 3.5 empire state buildings. For an hour of electricity.

coldpie 1y ago

> you need dispatchable power to supply power while the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing Fair. What do you suggest instead?

bryanlarsen 1y ago
For New York State, right next door to the Hydro electricity abundant Quebec, and with access to trade winds in the Atlantic Ocean? Solar, Wind & Batteries for 97% of power, send the excess to Quebec so they can idle their Hydro while the sun is shining, and then use Quebec Hydro for the last 3%. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-every-hour-of-every-day-is-here-and-it-changes-everything/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...
- zdragnar 1y ago
  What benefit does Quebec get from idling their hydro power?
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    They idle it while the sun is shining and power is almost worthless, and sell it while it isn't and prices are high.
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      Idling a hydro plant doesn't save them money, though. They're designed for efficient operation, and idling will actually induce more strain on the equipment. There's just no motivation for them to take the excess energy by throttling their own.
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        We're comparing to nuclear here. Yes, it might cost more money to run a hydro plant intermittently. It'll still be cheaper than nuclear.
      - throw0101c 1y ago
        > Idling a hydro plant doesn't save them money, though. When you're running you more create wear-and-tear and increase the depreciation rate: this can be costed. There's also probably increased staffing costs during higher levels of operations; also costable. Depending on the prices offered to the hydro-plant, it may or may not be profitable to run.
        olyjohn 1y ago
        Is this true, or are you just assuming here? There are a lot of mechanical things that work better when they are running and used consistency. Sometimes shutting them down and starting them back up, or throttling them actually causes more wear. Even my lawnmower runs more efficiently and has less wear at full throttle. It says right in the manual to run it at full throttle all the time.

sxg 1y ago

Can you clarify? I thought the idea was to run nuclear 24/7 to provide a steady, base rate of power while solar and wind provide complementary power that can be quickly ramped up or down.

bryanlarsen 1y ago
If you need something to supply power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you need it to supply peak power needs, not base power needs. And if nuclear can supply peak power needs, then you might as well just have a grid that is 100% nuclear. If nuclear can't supply peak power needs, then you need batteries or something else to do that. And if you're using batteries, it's a lot cheaper to charge them with solar than with nuclear.
- preisschild 1y ago
  You are not thinking about the big picture. If just running nuclear power plants 24/7 is cheaper than running Solar/Wind when the weather is perfect and backup/storage when not, then why should we scale solar/wind up that much to begin with?
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    > If just running nuclear power plants 24/7 is cheaper It's not cheaper, it's about 20x as expensive. Running nuclear intermittently is more than 20x as expensive.
    - throw0101c 1y ago
      > It's not cheaper, it's about 20x as expensive. Not according to the Ontario Energy Board, which sets wholesale rates; see Table 2: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2024...
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago

ericd 1y ago

I thought that they were quite throttleable, and it was because they needed to run near full power to pencil out economically/amortize their huge capex - that their fuel costs are relatively insignificant by comparison. Is that not the case?

preisschild 1y ago
Yes, they definitely can do load following.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Yes, that's what I meant by "but they're horrendously inefficient and expensive to run that way."
- ericd 1y ago
  Ah ok, sounded to me like there was some big ongoing inefficiency/inability, more than an opportunity cost thing.
seanmcdirmid 1y ago
Ya, fuel (uranium) is cheap, capital expenditures are not, so it makes sense to just run it at full bore all the time, even if you could bring it up and down quickly (which you really can’t).

FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago

You need continuous baseband generation to keep an electrical grid stable. If not nuclear, then it's going to be coal, gas, hydro, etc. Of the list, nuclear is the cleanest and least ecologicially destructive (by far).

bryanlarsen 1y ago
DC power sources (aka batteries) with smart inverters are the cheapest and fastest sources of grid stability in 2025t.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
  The largest battery storage system in use today is 2 orders of magnitude too small to even handle it's local baseband, covers 22 acres, and has already caught fire once. Batteries are decades away from large scale usage. Scale is what will nail you... every time.
  - anon84873628 1y ago
    And with "large scale usage" I'm more worried about battery fires than nuclear meltdowns.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  How large a volume of battery is needed to power nyc if the wind and sun are out for 5 hours? In units of Walmart parking lots please :) (Answer: 10)
  - ben_w 1y ago
    > In units of Walmart parking lots please :) From the pictures I've seen, I assumed those were areas rather than volumes? To put it another way, how high do you stack the batteries?
- mystified5016 1y ago
  The entire world's supply of lithium batteries in 2024 was (rounding up) 4TWh. In 2024, the USA used 30,000TWh. In December of 2024, we used about 2,500TWh. The entire planet's production capacity of batteries in 2024 would store enough energy to power the USA for 70 minutes. Being generous, this would occupy 3.5 million cubic meters, or (conveniently) 3.5 empire state buildings. For an hour of electricity.