yellowcanoe wrote:That's an apples and oranges comparison. Given the high capital costs of nuclear, it would not make any sense to build enough nuclear to handle peak loads. You would at most build enough nuclear to handle your base load and keep the reactors running all the time. You need other types of generation to handle peak loads but that is in no way "backup" for nuclear. Wind and Solar on the other hand definitely need backup as they are intermittent sources.
The inflexibility of nuclear is itself an issue:
German researchers have found that the need for storage is not relative to wind + solar anyway, but to the combination of inflexible baseload along with wind + solar.
If it can't ramp up and down like natural gas can than it's value to the grid is lower than flexible sources like natural gas.
Myth: “Baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid”
Reality: As new reports from the Brattle Group and the Analysis Group show, “baseload” is an outdated term. It does not refer to any electricity system values or services, and it is not equivalent to reliability. While the term “baseload” can have several different meanings, it historically functioned as shorthand for a category of resources that provided relatively low operating-cost electricity to meet minimum round-the-clock electricity demand levels. The term is reminiscent of a time when coal and nuclear power plants were viewed as essential for supplying power to meet customer needs and few if any viable alternatives existed.
In today’s electricity system, however, using “baseload” to describe a particular type of power plant or resource no longer serves any practical purpose. The price competition from renewable energy and natural gas is far stronger it was in the past, meaning that it no longer makes sense to default to inflexible coal and nuclear units, which can’t be quickly ramped up and down, to serve the bulk of load. Instead, as many already are doing, decision makers should focus on a framework that: (a) effectively and efficiently defines electric system and public policy needs (e.g. operational flexibility, greenhouse gas abatement) and (b) develops tools, markets, and methodologies that draw upon the broad range of available resources that can cost-effectively and reliably meet those needs. This framework rewards coal and nuclear plants only where they are truly needed, but prioritizes other resources when it is more cost-effective to do so.
Myth: Renewable energy resources like wind and solar undermine grid reliability
Reality: The record shows time and time again that wind and solar power contribute to a dependable power supply and help prevent blackouts and other grid problems. Just one of many examples: the California grid operator, which manages a grid with nation’s highest levels of solar power, confirms that solar energy can provide many grid reliability services like voltage support and frequency response, both of which are necessary to ensure a constant and stable power flow. In fact, renewable resources often can provide reliability services better than conventional natural gas or coal resources. We also know that high penetrations of renewables can be managed reliably. For example, wind energy in Texas often provides more than 30 percent or even 40 percent of the state’s daily power needs throughout the entire day.
Myth: Wholesale power markets should discriminate in favor of “baseload” resources
Reality: “Baseload” is not equivalent to reliability or any other system needs, and for that reason resources should not be compensated solely on the basis of their status as “baseload.” Instead, grid operators and planners should focus on valuing needed services, like flexibility – the ability to ramp up or down quickly to meet changing demand. Resources like coal and nuclear are often limited in their ability to provide flexibility services.
Debunking Three Myths About “Baseload”yellowcanoe wrote:You are not going to find any commercial power reactors that have been in operation for 60 years because that technology is less than 60 years old. The earliest power reactors had relatively short service lives as they were built primarily to prove the concept was viable and were not large enough to be cost effective. For example, the NPD (Nuclear Power Demonstrator) reactor which was the first CANDU power reactor only produced 20MW. I believe the oldest reactor still in operation is the NRU reactor at Chalk River, Ontario. Originally built as a research reactor it spent most of its life producing medical isotopes. It is scheduled to be shutdown next year after 61 years of operation.
Exactly. So you should not be using 60+ year lifespans for your equations.
coffeeguyzz wrote:Your saying that the cost of wind is declining is both accurate and somewhat beside the point.
The cost of CCGT electricity east of the Mississippi will always beat out whirleys.
That's great for as long as gas is cheap. Less we forget less than 10 years ago gas was more than
triple what it cost today. We will probably have cheap gas for many years to come. But eventually prices will rise again. Do we really want to retool the majority of our power grid to be overwhelmingly natural gas? What happens when prices go back up? There is something to be said for diversity.
Natural gas prices are projected to increase
• In the Reference case, the natural gas spot prices at the U.S. benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana rise because of increased drilling levels, production expansion into less prolific and more expensive-toproduce areas, and demand from both petrochemical and liquefied natural gas export facilities.
Annual Energy Outlook 2017And let's not forget that the world is bigger than our own back yard. Low gas prices might make gas the preferred method of generating electricity in your neck of the woods. But elsewhere in the world, gas is much more expensive.
The oil barrel is half-full.