• IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    You can’t do that with solar or wind, but you can with nuclear.

    That’s why I said renewables and storage. There are lots of storage technologies such as pumped hydro and various kinds of battery that can react very quickly to increased demand. You categorically cannot do that with nuclear, where did you learn this?

    Firstly, nuclear needs to run 24/7 as it’s not economically feasible to do anything else given how much these things cost. Secondly, you’re still heating water to create steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. All of that takes time to ramp up and means that nuclear is not used to generate in response to increased demand.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      […] react very quickly to increased demand. You categorically cannot do that with nuclear, where did you learn this?

      This is not correct.

      A Brief Survey of Load-Following Capabilities in Modern Nuclear Power Plants

      Load-following NPPs in France claim power output ramps as much as 5%/min if necessary, though typical ramps are kept below 1.5%/min.

      Certain French NPPs routinely decrease power output 50% at night.

      It’s true that load-following is mostly not done with nuclear in the US, but this is policy/common practice/habit, not a technical limitation of nuclear power plants.

      Also, I mentioned pumped hydro storage to point out specifically that battery technology really isn’t effective enough yet. It still doesn’t scale well, it’s too expensive for large grids.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is not correct.

        It is, you just proved it yourself:

        “typical ramps are kept below 1.5%/min.”

        Compare that with batteries or pumped hydro.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          That’s plenty fast enough for a power grid.

          1.5% of 900MW is 13.5MW. That’s plenty of power output scaling per minute.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I think you’re getting peaker plants, e.g gas fired confused with load following.

            Nuclear plants are not used as peaker plants. you incorrectly stated that they are.

            • MaxMalRichtig@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’s a shame that you’re being voted down here, even though your points are actually more on the factual side. Well, that’s probably the fate of those who “dare” to say something against nuclear. Even if everyone else demonstrably doesn’t have a clue about the subject: They’re still bashing it. It’s just good that downvotes on Lemmy don’t really matter.

    • mranachi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, but your assertion that renewable is cheaper completely ignored the cost of grid scale energy storage suitable to remove fossil fuel generation.