Electricity map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity

Re:Electricity map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity by kergonath on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @10:34AM (#30766570)

100% nuclear is not economical or practical. Nuclear is poorly suited to regular spikes and short-term load balancing. It shines when you need reliable, cheap electricity 24 hours a day, all year round (or at least for several days).

100% solar and wind also isn’t economical or practical. Their output is more cyclical and less reliable, and they tend to fail together.

The best way to run a power grid is actually to balance nuclear, wind/solar, and hydro (which has its own set of advantages and drawbacks).

So, the “100% this or 100% that” question is a red herring. We must use all the tools available (because the situation is actually quite dire), where they make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Electricity map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity by smotah on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @03:14PM (#30770214)

> 100% nuclear is not economical or practical. Nuclear is poorly suited to regular spikes and short-term load balancing.

While using only nuclear power plants for all the domestic electricity generation of a country doesn't make much sense, some reactor design, notably French ones (in particular composition of the control rods and their placement in the core, among other things) allows for very flexible control over power output. [0] EDF makes the surprising claim that their plants are as flexible as gas plants, which are generally considered as the go-to method of load following.

Also curious to why 100% nuclear wouldn't be economical, wouldn't this hypothetical situation benefits from the economy of scale and grid management simplification?

[0] https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document (PDF)

[ Parent | on HN ]