ftth_finland

12 ms·

91.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> nuclear power plants might need to pay for someone to take the energy because they can not ramp fast enough. Is this generally true? The local Wikipedia says nuclear ramps up or down at 5%/min. This is faster than any other method
92.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Hopefully the antiquated must take rules for variable renewables will be replaced with must take rules for non-fossile deterministic power generation.
93.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> Of course, if someone puts up the money and eats the loss you get cheap electricity. The power companies paid for the nukes and the French paid for botching the job. > The problem is, someone has to eat the loss. People proposing nu
94.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> I think what you are missing from this discussion is that both renewables and nuclear require dispatchable power to fill the gaps. Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 10
95.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> I think what you are missing from this discussion is that both renewables and nuclear require dispatchable power to fill the gaps. Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 10
96.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Again, the nuclear part isn’t the interesting bit. It’s the storage part that is interesting and keeps being ignored in these comments. Yes, the French had to pay penalties and cost overruns. Even so that only doubles the system costs from
97.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Which part in particular was nonsense? I only had time to watch half of it.
98.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
https://model.energy/ Use that to play with the numbers at different locations.
99.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> It is an argument hinging on cost. Well, if you ignore reliability. To decarbonize without rolling blackouts you need nuclear or storage.
100.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
£0.30 per kWh is also optimistic over the lifetime of the panel. Around these parts you get the spot price for any solar you generate. Prices can, and do, go negative. In general prices tend to be low when the sun is shining and/or the
101.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
A brand new nuclear power plant was just taken into service here in Finland. As a result electricity prices dropped about 5 cents per kWh across the board. However, as noted before, this isn’t really all that interesting. The storage part i
102.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
I could argue that nuclear power isn’t that expensive when I can buy nuclear power at retail for 9 cents per kWh, but that isn’t really an interesting point. I’m more interested in learning where all the storage that’s going to be needed to
103.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Why are you asking me? I am not Woodmac. Furthermore, their projections only go to 2027. I’m sure they will commission a custom report for you if you compensate them enough. Either way, 2030 grid storage projections are highly speculative.
104.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> If we add 10-17GWh in 2023, it would be foolish to think we will add the same amount in 2024. The amount added per year will grow too. According to the Woodmac report I referenced, the amount of grid storage added yearly is going down.
105.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> The entire industry is growing at 10x capacity every five years! Grid storage is projected only to grow 10-17 GWh per year according to the aforementioned article. Is that anywhere enough, if the aim is to decarbonise?
106.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Here in Finland nuclear availability is over 90%. Admittedly this is better than in most other countries. Solar load factor is 9% and wind 30%.
107.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> The same caveats are also true of nuclear, and happen far more frequently for nuclear. Out of interest, how do you find the issues to be more frequent for nuclear? Around these parts we run nuclear for base load and it pretty much runs
108.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
According to a recent report, there was only 13.4 GWh of grid storage in the US 2022. Even with projected growth, each addition 12 GWh is not trivial. https://www.smart-energy.com/regional-news/north-america/us-...
109.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
More solar is better if it displaces fossil fuels, loads can be moved to coincide with sunshine, output can be cost effectively stored and/or the climate is co-operative. Not all of these assumptions hold everywhere or every time.
110.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> We notice that nuclear is the only one to increase “ France and South Korea were at least able to keep prices and construction times constant.” “ those countries that were able to avoid price surges are countries that do not stand out
111.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
I strongly recommend you acquaint yourself with a dictionary. Look up "rhetorical". I can suggest other words also. > I can't be bothered to answer questions Well, I can't blame you if you don't know or can'
112.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Asking questions is attacking, now is it? What are we, snowflakes? Can you please answer the question with dollars and cents? Or if you don't know, say so. Green electricity isn't free. Neither will synthetic fuels be.
113.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
Yes, but it's 280 pages. Which parts in particular address long term storage? Searching for "storage" gives very few hits. This was perhaps the most pertinent hit: "IT IS GENERALLY NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO store elec
114.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially avail
115.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
That's a very interesting site. I got Average system cost [EUR/MWh]: 101.9 which is more than nuclear, when solving for renewables + storage + hydrogen.
116.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
How much is virtually free? How much will each kWh generated from synthetic fuels cost?
117.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> The opportunity cost of dollars - nobody is going to spend $15 billion on nuclear when much better investments exist. What better investment opportunity? Again, what else are you going to spend the money on that gives you non-polluting
118.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
> I would humbly suggest that in future you try to avoid using rhetorical questions to make a point when the rhetorical question can be answered by google. It was not a rhetorical question. Furthermore the first hit on Google is: "G
119.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
I did. You didn't read anything I wrote, nor did you raise any of the points I raised.
120.
by ftth_finland 3y ago
The plants aren't free.

More ›