Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

A fully nuclear grid would require some battery storage for this reason. Large nuclear plants aren't that great at load leveling.

View on HN

To be honest, a full anything grid would be a terrible idea. There's not a one size fits all energy solution. Different regions have different demands. They have different advantages and disadvantages. We also don't want to put all our eggs in one basket for energy security reasons.

There are some geographical exceptions - Norway literally does not need anything else other than hydro.

I actually really like Japans system they had to inadvertently invent - the north part of the country and south operate on different power standards ( I believe the phase? ). This led to them building MASSIVE insanely high voltage DC to DC connections between the two grids so one side could still supply the other with power. But the other plus is that ( I believe ) one side can also not take the other out or draw too much power. China is investing heavily in super high voltage long distance power transfer and I suspect the US could do the same and use it to connect different areas of the country. Also much lower transmission losses.

The US has gigantic wind resources down the middle that could help power the coasts if transmission was there.

A fully nuclear grid probably wouldn't make sense. France has a 60-70% nuclear electricity grid and manages just fine. Some of their reactors use grey rods which can be inserted into the core which have less effect than the normal control rods but don't distort the shape of the reaction as much as a partially inserted rod.

With a capacity factor of about 70% [1]. Compared to for example the US at 93.7%. That difference of 23% has to be taken out over the top of the already high cost of nuclear, which as we can see here still lose money at the higher level.

[1]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...

France has all sorts of problems and their grid would break regularly if they couldn't import energy during the Summer when their cooling water sources get too hot and they have to shut down all their reactors.

More specifically, the water become too hot to be released in a river without impacting the bio-environment, not all plants have this issue.

That's a completely separate issue. It would also be common to all thermoelectric powerplants placed in the same locations.

All sources of power can have engineering challenges. Like the recent Texas blackouts where equipment related to the gas supply stopped due to the cold weather.

"It would also be common to all thermoelectric powerplants placed in the same locations."

Common, but not the same. Nuclear power work efficiency (30-40%?) is typically lower than a gas turbine plant (60%?). So electrical watt for electrical watt, the nukes need far more cooling water.

Hu, a fully nuclear grid would be built to support the highest demand, and plants would be giving energy away when there is a surplus (or actually what would probably happen is that people would design plants that can economically load follow). So, that surplus could go into various liquid fuel's, or whatever.

Its something I've said before, you overbuild nukes, and use the excess capacity for water desalination, jet fuel production, CO2 recapture, or any other energy intensive process which creates a product that can be easily stored.

Nuclear energy is basically free once you have built the plant.

I agree - if having TOO MUCH power is the thing we are saying is a disadvantage of Nuclear that sounds like a pretty damn good problem to have. We just need to find some new creative ways to use that excess power.

Maybe an interesting way to do this would be to give "power" grants to local students or universities - applications could be sent in with proposals and test projects and then those who are accepted would get access to free power during excess times and maybe also some kind of warehouse like workspace / nearby location. Could be a huge educational benefit and drive innovation.

We already know what to do with excess power: capture carbon, electrolyse hydrogen, synthesize ammonia, kerosene, and methane, and refine aluminum; and charge storage systems. It takes time and capital to build all of those out: capital that nuke plant construction and refurbishing compete for.

It is a much, much better use of capital to build the others out, and the solar and wind, than to spend the money trying to bring those ramshackle contraptions out of retirement.

The last sentence is quite far from true.

It used to be not-too-dishonest when compared to coal, but always was compared to hydro. Now we have solar and wind, besides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com