| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 13 hours ago |
| The problem is that nuclear powers profile with fixed output and extremely high CAPEX costs is the opposite to what a modern grid needs. How would you add an extremely expensive new built nuclear plant to this grid? Would you shut it down for days on end or try to run it as a peaker? https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&... |
|
| ▲ | kitd 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| But SMRs address the capex costs by reducing time and resources needed to provision them. The "M" stands for "modular" after all, ie components can be built offsite and imported, and capacity can be added incrementally. Think 'agile', not 'waterfall'. |
| |
| ▲ | pfdietz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. And the contrapositive as well: if SMRs are not cheap enough to displace solar and wind, they aren't cheap enough to act as backup. The scenario where it's just a backup never arises in cost minimized solutions. | | |
| ▲ | kitd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. That doesn't follow necessarily. Wind & solar being the most cost effective doesn't mean you remove all backups just because they aren't as cost effective. | | |
| ▲ | graemep 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its the other way around. If you have sufficient nuclear to act as a backup, then you have sufficient that you do not need the wind and solar in addition. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cinntaile 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's South Australia, not the UK. My point still stands though given that I specifically did not exclude any scenario. It makes more sense to optimize when you include all energy sources. It's still possible some sources won't end up in the final solution and that's fine. |
|
| ▲ | justincormack 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Or add a load of batteries to the capex and redistribute the constant load? |
| |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | If taking that step, why charge the batteries with extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity rather than cheap renewables? It is done when moving electricity around when the grid is strained. Buy expensive electricity and sell it at even higher prices. But that is a vanishly tiny portion of the demand. | | |
| ▲ | evandijk70 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because there is little solar in the 3 winter months, so you would need a lot more storage for solar then for nuclear. | | |
|
|
