In an earlier piece we discussed the tradeoff between nuclear power's cost and plant radiation release frequency, and how the NRC's valuation of the two dimensions is quite different from society's. The NRC regards a release to be intolerable which moves the NRC far up the cost/release tradeoff curve, preventing society from enjoying anything close to the full benefits of nuclear power. In particular, the capital cost of nuclear ends up five to ten times the
And if nuclear was at 66% CF for electrical use, it could easily be run extra to run electrolysers for non-electrical hydrogen use, like for fertilizer or steel…
I wonder what it would look like for nuclear with thermal storage?
Basically it’s a ‘battery’ but with both energy capacity and power capacity costs between LiON and H2. Say $750/kW discharge, and $50/kWh. It gets ‘free’ charge capacity up to the relevant reactor nameplate power. And it gives an option to give an essentially free upgrade to an OCGT to CCGT efficiency with the constraint that the thermal storage output and the ‘extra’ gas output are shared.
In your scenario here with very low but synchronous gas turbine demand, it’s probably better to assume liquid fuel stored onsite, rather than pipeline gas…
We are adding 200 MW solar to our 600 MW gas-and-coal plant in Cochise County AZ, plus OCGT to back up the solar. Assuming our demand histogram has the same shape as Germany, with a long tail on the high end, it looks to me that covering that last 1% of the peak demand may be unnecessarily expensive. If we can get 50% of our customers to install smart meters, and volunteer for rolling blackouts. Instead of covering that last 1% in with expensive generators, why not 2% loss of service for the 50% of customers who would like a discount on their regular bill?
I wonder how this would play out in your model. Of course, the big unknowns are how many would volunteer, and what would be the discount. I would accept a 2% loss of service for a 10% discount.
And if nuclear was at 66% CF for electrical use, it could easily be run extra to run electrolysers for non-electrical hydrogen use, like for fertilizer or steel…
I wonder what it would look like for nuclear with thermal storage?
Basically it’s a ‘battery’ but with both energy capacity and power capacity costs between LiON and H2. Say $750/kW discharge, and $50/kWh. It gets ‘free’ charge capacity up to the relevant reactor nameplate power. And it gives an option to give an essentially free upgrade to an OCGT to CCGT efficiency with the constraint that the thermal storage output and the ‘extra’ gas output are shared.
In your scenario here with very low but synchronous gas turbine demand, it’s probably better to assume liquid fuel stored onsite, rather than pipeline gas…
"Put another way, the $200/ton CO2 slope on the $16000/kW CAPEX curve is well to the right and below the $200/ton CO2 slope on the $8000/kW."
Shouldn't that read: *above* the $200/ton CO2 slope on the $8000/kW? ... Or are you thinking in terms of the more negative $16000/kW slope?
In any case, an interesting way of viewing grid carbon intensity. Now all we need is some of that nuclear low Should-Cost!
We are adding 200 MW solar to our 600 MW gas-and-coal plant in Cochise County AZ, plus OCGT to back up the solar. Assuming our demand histogram has the same shape as Germany, with a long tail on the high end, it looks to me that covering that last 1% of the peak demand may be unnecessarily expensive. If we can get 50% of our customers to install smart meters, and volunteer for rolling blackouts. Instead of covering that last 1% in with expensive generators, why not 2% loss of service for the 50% of customers who would like a discount on their regular bill?
I wonder how this would play out in your model. Of course, the big unknowns are how many would volunteer, and what would be the discount. I would accept a 2% loss of service for a 10% discount.