zlacker

>>RobinL+(OP)
Curtailment, like negative prices, seems like something that it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about.

Probably the cheapest and best option is to build more wind and not care too much if it increases curtailment.

Yes, all the things mentioned should be looked into and done when it makes financial sense but "wasting wind" is much less a thing to worry about than "burning gas", and I'd rather waste wind than waste money.

>>ZeroGr+k8
Balancing a nationwide power grid is very complex. Some energy sources can be started and stopped instantly, but are limited - water. Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). A balanced grid will need all of them, will need them in quantities which can cover faults in the big producers(a nuclear reactor makes 700-800 MW). They will need them built in the right place, because while more power cables can be built, you can't transfer a lot of power on very long distances, for cost and grid stability reasons.

>>redlea+ud
Nuclear power plants can vary their output faster than most people think, see

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...

   ... most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) 
   to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once 
   or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated   
   power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute.

One trouble is that changing the power output does put stress on components because of thermal expansion and contraction, potentially shortening their lifespan, but it something that can be designed for.

>>PaulHo+pn
Varying output from a nuclear plant is mostly achieved by simply releasing the generated steam into the atmosphere instead of sending it through the turbine[1].

But operating a nuclear plant in this fashion pushes up the price per MWh considerably given their very high cap-ex and op-ex. And while fuel cost is negligible for nuclear, creating more nuclear waste per useful MWh generated is a further drag on costs.

So as a solution, it "works" if the nuclear plant does not have to compete in terms of price with other sources of electricity. But nuclear fails to compete on cost even if operated continuously - it's uncompetitive with cheap, quick to deploy, low op-ex, modern tech like CC gas turbines or renewables in most western electricity markets and can only survive with government subsidy[2].

[1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0703/ML070380209.pdf [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/19/biden-adm...

>>derriz+HJ
It seems obvious that nuclear can not compete against natural gas when natural gas is priced cheaply and the pollution caused by fossil fuel is put on society rather than the operator. A combined grid of renewables and fossil fuels has been the primary strategy in most European countries and was working very well in keeping prices low until Russia invaded Ukraine.

The big problem is that energy prices are set based on the most expensive unit that needs to be turned on to meet demand. Renewables do not tend to be that during periods of low supply, as low supply of energy in the eu market generally means sub-optimal weather conditions for renewables. It is going to be either fossil fuels, nuclear, or battery. If we take out fossil fuels then that leaves battery or nuclear. Neither is very economical without subsidies. Governments (and tax paying citizens) are however very keen on grid stability and thus willing to spend a lot of money to keep it running.