25 ms·

You are very wrong. US base load demand is around 400GW that must be provided 24/7

bryanlarsen 1mo ago
Baseload is a cost optimization strategy only relevant if your non-dispatchable power generation is cheaper than your dispatchable power generation. https://en.acatech.de/publication/baseload-power-plants/ https://en.acatech.de/publication/baseload-power-plants/
- UltraSane 1mo ago
  You need to have dispatchable capacity equal to or greater than your base load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round. I am very dubious of any energy policy coming form Germany because they have managed to make their electricity among the most expensive in the world while STILL being high carbon.
  - bryanlarsen 1mo ago
    > You need to have dispatchable capacity equal to or greater than your base load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round. Just one word change needed: You need to have dispatchable capacity equal or greater than your peak load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
dalyons 1mo ago
Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing any nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear. base load demand does not mean it has to be met with a constant matched source, and in fact that no longer works economically.
- UltraSane 1mo ago
  This is fundamentally a pricing problem that hourly-matched carbon-free energy accounting tries to solve. https://www.eurelectric.org/in-detail/247-2/ https://www.eurelectric.org/in-detail/247-2/ Natrium has an interesting design for a 345MW reactor that has thermal storage that can boost output to 500MW for 5.5 hours. This lets it increase output during peak prices.
  - dalyons 1mo ago
    I mean, sounds kinda cool. But that 2023 idea is very clearly not going to happen in the current US political environment. We’re in an era of brutal capitalism, and nothing else matters but price. Not even emissions sadly. Green compacts like this have no chance, and neither do nukes. Unless they pay the right bribes for some subsidies.
    - UltraSane 1mo ago
      The Trump admin is actually very pro-nuclear power. They are ending the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard in favor of fixed limits which is actually a good idea, possibly the only one the Trump admin has ever had.
      - dalyons 1mo ago
        i know they are (or claim to be). Im extremely unconvinced that meaningfully changes the flawed economics of nuclear power. I would love to be proven wrong and a wave of innovative economically competitive nuclear technology emerges... possible, but seems vanishingly unlikely. I think we'll see a few companies and projects connected to the administration get grants and tax breaks and favors, pull a few headlines, seem like there's movement. Maybe even build something! but ultimately be a meaningless footnote in the energy transition. Just another grift for the most corrupt admin in US history.
        UltraSane 1mo ago

Baseload is a cost optimization strategy only relevant if your non-dispatchable power generation is cheaper than your dispatchable power generation. https://en.acatech.de/publication/baseload-power-plants/ https://en.acatech.de/publication/baseload-power-plants/

UltraSane 1mo ago
You need to have dispatchable capacity equal to or greater than your base load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round. I am very dubious of any energy policy coming form Germany because they have managed to make their electricity among the most expensive in the world while STILL being high carbon.
- bryanlarsen 1mo ago
  > You need to have dispatchable capacity equal to or greater than your base load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round. Just one word change needed: You need to have dispatchable capacity equal or greater than your peak load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]

dalyons 1mo ago

Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing any nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear. base load demand does not mean it has to be met with a constant matched source, and in fact that no longer works economically.

UltraSane 1mo ago
This is fundamentally a pricing problem that hourly-matched carbon-free energy accounting tries to solve. https://www.eurelectric.org/in-detail/247-2/ https://www.eurelectric.org/in-detail/247-2/ Natrium has an interesting design for a 345MW reactor that has thermal storage that can boost output to 500MW for 5.5 hours. This lets it increase output during peak prices.
- dalyons 1mo ago
  I mean, sounds kinda cool. But that 2023 idea is very clearly not going to happen in the current US political environment. We’re in an era of brutal capitalism, and nothing else matters but price. Not even emissions sadly. Green compacts like this have no chance, and neither do nukes. Unless they pay the right bribes for some subsidies.
  - UltraSane 1mo ago
    The Trump admin is actually very pro-nuclear power. They are ending the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard in favor of fixed limits which is actually a good idea, possibly the only one the Trump admin has ever had.
    - dalyons 1mo ago
      i know they are (or claim to be). Im extremely unconvinced that meaningfully changes the flawed economics of nuclear power. I would love to be proven wrong and a wave of innovative economically competitive nuclear technology emerges... possible, but seems vanishingly unlikely. I think we'll see a few companies and projects connected to the administration get grants and tax breaks and favors, pull a few headlines, seem like there's movement. Maybe even build something! but ultimately be a meaningless footnote in the energy transition. Just another grift for the most corrupt admin in US history.
      - UltraSane 1mo ago