[leymed]

I think you’re missing the point how turbine-generator works. The rpm speed has to stay the same, meaning the rotor speed doesn’t change. As long as you don’t have closed circuit you’ll waste that mechanical energy. If you meant starting from stand still position, then you’re right it takes couple minutes to pick up the load.

With that said, turbines responding in couple minutes are more reliable as a baseline when you’re planning load flow of as big as country or wider area. The basic reason is that you have source of energy under your control such as nuclear, water, gas, coal. You cannot have solar, wind as your baseline, I don’t want sound dramatic, but it’s kind of suicidal to do that. Solar’s ramping is not a win when you consider greater scale.

[ViewTrick1002]

Reliable until it isn’t.

The entire grid is a statistical system where we define the acceptable uptime.

Renewables are as good as any other energy source bringing its own fuel, just need to take the variability into account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

[leymed]

You’re correct that the system is statistical, and it’s planned accordingly. However, we cannot omit the fact that it’s the running turbine that responds faster to the unpredictable nature of the grid. The backbone of the grid, aka the baseline plants, are extremely responsive to unpredictable nature of the grid at a greater scale, with enough amount of safety margins to bring into service under unusual circumstances. I really don’t see, at least what we have in hand rn, that happening with solar or wind. Without strong baseline you’d experience supply demand imbalance, in engineering terms frequency decay, voltage collapse.

[ViewTrick1002]

Which means nuclear is the worst companion imaginable. Since nuclear power needs to run at 100% 24/7 to only make an enormous loss.

Dispatchable nuclear power to complement renewables has never made sense.

[Herz]

It's amazing how every comment you make is the most boring ideological propaganda

[ViewTrick1002]

Stating facts is “ideological propaganda”?

Work with the world, not against it.

[dgacmu]

Your comments are coming across as lacking nuance ("nuclear is the worst possible...", for example).

Nuclear has a place depending on how you weigh specific factors in your grid design. It's zero carbon. It's hideously expensive, particularly in capex. It's generally quite reliable and its availability is mostly uncorrelated with that of solar and wind. it's modestly dispatchable - you can scale down to 60% or so in many designs. (A little lower but let's be conservative).

If you place high weight on zero carbon, nuclear is an (expensive) way to get through the night. It can work pretty well in a grid mix if your grid is large enough that the loss of one nuclear plant isn't a really big chunk of your power supply (since, obviously, you want enough redundancy to handle a certain fraction of generation failures at peak load).

Are solar+wind+batteries on a much better trajectory? Yes. But batteries are not there _yet_ for 24x7, though I think we all hope they will be in the reasonably near future.

[Herz]

These are lies you tell yourself and how you want people to see you. In a past discussion, you concluded by saying that those who support nuclear energy also support fossil fuels.

These are your ideological premises; you don't care about creating a better world, nor are you interested in facts and problems. You only care about your vision of things and making it prevail over others.

There's no need to know anything else to make any of your comments irrelevant. It's no coincidence that you are in every nuclear discussion, asserting how much you are against it.