• p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why would an all nuclear grid need more than a day of storage? You just need to match constant supply with a 24 hour demand curve.

      (And I doubt anyone’s arguing for an all-nuclear grid, since renewables are so cheap when they’re available. We just need enough dispatchable power on the grid to survive weather events without burning gas.)

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would an all nuclear grid need more than a day of storage?

        Technically they need 200,000 years worth of storage. Although in that case it’s more archival.

        And you can’t just balance load with nuclear reactors, they take forever (as in days to weeks) to spool up, you can’t just switch them on. So you’re still going to need some storage capacity and if you’re going to have storage anyway you might as well have a simpler energy generation system to boot without all of the big complicated nuclear reactor equipment.

        Plus of course the fact that you can stand up solar panels and wind turbines almost anywhere in 6 months, but you’ll be wrangling for 30 years to build a new nuclear reactor.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because they have weeks or months long unplanned outages every year, often correlated and are over-concentrated geographically so fail-over requires huge transmission overprovision.

        As to that last, building a $20/W generator and keeping it in hot shutdown to use for 200 hours a year costs thousands of dollars per MWh. There are vastly cheaper ways to get 100 hour storage.

        • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Has anyone actually built 100 hour storage at a significant scale? There’s potential for things like iron-air and green hydrogen, but they seem like uncertain emerging technologies.

          • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Pumped hydro exists in many places (and is available pretty much everywhere). There are also demo installs for other low-discharge batteries. Also “put another battery next to the other battery” isn’t some undiscovered technology, as soon as it’s necessary LFP is ready even if you assume there’s no other option.

            It doesn’t really matter though because wind/solar has demonstrably higher grid penetration capability with less storage and less overprovision than nuclear. Geographic over-concentration and unreliability is a much bigger downside than intermittency in that regard.

            • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So for grid reliability, it would be better to build (e.g.) a distributed fleet of 100 MW reactors than a single 1 GW reactor?

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah that would likely improve it, but then you’re paying as much for the fuel as the renewable grid’s total cost and much more on top of that for security and O&M. You also need to quadruple uranium mining overnight to just do the first fuel load for enough new generation to keep up with new wind and solar installs.

                Rather than going to more and more tortured extents to try and make nuclear work, we could just do the thing that’s working extremely well. In the absolute worst case where we assume medium and long term storage is impossible rather than not yet necessary, the total emissions from the residual thermal generation over tue next century are less than the emissions from delaying the transition to try and make nuclear work.