Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

blog.gridstatus.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#11

Post by huijzer »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

Something interesting is that with substantial solar and batteries being deployed in the ERCOT market (in scope grid operator for this piece), solar generation in excess of what the grid can consume with load combined with grid forming inverters (vs traditional grid following) can step in when called upon if a traditionally firmer generator (coal or nuclear) trips out. The potential is already there (photons hitting…

An individual inverter can usually switch in about 4 ms. A Tesla Megapack can go from 0% output to max output in 100 ms. Conversely, gas turbines (the fastest type of traditional power plant) takes about a minute to go from say 40% to 60%. Even in the fastest possible design, there is a mechanical rotor (kinetic energy) that has to change speed.

What I mean to say is that solar and batteries are likely an order of magnitude faster to respond to sudden demand changes. So I would expect a more reliable system when more solar and especially batteries are being added.

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#12

Post by gunapologist99 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
kccqzy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most curtailment IIRC is due to insufficient transmission capacity. I doubt curtailed solar can be called upon in an emergency unless the emergency is located very close to the curtailed solar.

It's a fair point (why curtailment is in effect), and I think speaks to the fact that more granular and timely data is needed wrt all nodes and transmission segment within the system. Also a call for more batteries everywhere between generation and load. With regards to transmission congestion, that is easily fixed with installing batteries at currently storageless renewable generation facilities (the batteries then…

Batteries are extremely expensive per megawatt, not very durable, require carefully controlled temperatures, and their manufacturer and recycling extract a tremendous cost from the environment. For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale.

However, there are other ways to store energy; unfortunately, most involve converting electricity to another form of energy such as potential (gravitational) energy, like pumping water uphill or lifting heavy weights. These also have relatively little long-term environmental cost. Unfortunately, they're a bit more inefficient (but so are batteries, relative to some other forms of stored energy such as fossil fuels).

It'd be interesting if we could find some ways to convert landfills or other urban blight issues into a durable energy store without poisoning the environment.

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#13

Post by toomuchtodo »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #12
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fair point (why curtailment is in effect), and I think speaks to the fact that more granular and timely data is needed wrt all nodes and transmission segment within the system. Also a call for more batteries everywhere between generation and load. With regards to transmission congestion, that is easily fixed with installing batteries at currently storageless renewable generation facilities (the batteries then…

Batteries are extremely expensive per megawatt, not very durable, require carefully controlled temperatures, and their manufacturer and recycling extract a tremendous cost from the environment. For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale. However, there are other ways to store energy; unfortunately, most involve converting electricity to another form of energy such as pot…

> Batteries are extremely expensive per megawatt, not very durable, require carefully controlled temperatures, and their manufacturer and recycling extract a tremendous cost from the environment. For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale.

None of this is accurate. I encourage you to update your mental model with recent data. Citations below for your convenience. AMA, global energy transition is my passion.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/batteries-texas-consumers-6... ("Utility Dive: Batteries saved Texas consumers $683M during 2-day January freeze: Aurora Energy Research")

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919052 ("HN: China's Batteries Are Now Cheap Enough to Power Huge Shifts")

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40601878 ("Lazard: IRA brings LCOS of 100MW, 4hr standalone BESS down as low as US$124/MWh"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35513612 ("HN: The biggest EV battery recycling plant in the US is open for business")

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/battery-r... | https://archive.today/OjA91 ("Bloomberg: Battery Recycling Shatters the Myth of Electric Vehicle Waste")

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost... ("Lazard: 2023 Levelized Cost Of Energy+")

https://raokonidena.substack.com/p/history-of-10000-cycles-o... ("History of 10,000 cycles or 10 year warranty for Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)")

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf ("NREL data shows BESS asset life is 15-20 years.")

https://web.archive.org/web/20240728011101/https://www.eia.g... (US EIA; gray installations are new battery storage planned for deployment over the next 12 months, June 2024 through May 2025)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202 ("US EIA: U.S. battery storage capacity expected to nearly double in 2024")

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 ("US EIA: Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024")

https://www.woodmac.com/blogs/energy-pulse/battery-storage-b... ("Wood Mackenzie: Battery storage begins to play a key role for US grids")

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/batte... ("NY Times: Giant Batteries Are Transforming the Way the U.S. Uses Electricity")

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#14

Post by floatrock »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #12
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fair point (why curtailment is in effect), and I think speaks to the fact that more granular and timely data is needed wrt all nodes and transmission segment within the system. Also a call for more batteries everywhere between generation and load. With regards to transmission congestion, that is easily fixed with installing batteries at currently storageless renewable generation facilities (the batteries then…

Batteries are extremely expensive per megawatt, not very durable, require carefully controlled temperatures, and their manufacturer and recycling extract a tremendous cost from the environment. For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale. However, there are other ways to store energy; unfortunately, most involve converting electricity to another form of energy such as pot…

> For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale.

Lithium-ion, sure, but aren't there a whole host of other battery chemistries that are basically too big / too heavy to put on vehicles but a lot cheaper so well suited for stationary storage?

Are they all still at the research phase and so currently more expensive than the decades-of-learning-curve lithium-ion?

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#15

Post by theideaofcoffee »

Symbiote wrote: post #3

Where does the 1500MW of heat the reactor is producing go, immediately after the generators are isolated from the grid?

Instead of that energy being directed to the turbines to convert the thermal energy into rotational energy (and thus it to electricity), the reactor begins cooling from the primary reactions (but not completely since secondary reactions/decay still are going) since there is no reaction heat (reactor idled). All of that excess residual heat contained in the mass of the fuel and reactor water is carried away by the cooling water loop, and either out to the cooling tower where it evaporates and releases its energy, or through the next stages of the loop into the cooling supply, most likely a neighboring river or lake.

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#16

Post by [deleted] »

rtkwe wrote: post #6
Symbiote wrote: post #3

Where does the 1500MW of heat the reactor is producing go, immediately after the generators are isolated from the grid?

The reactor is turned down and rapidly stops producing that much heat. On site backups keep the pumps running to continue cooling the residual heat. There's a long slow tail as lower energy fusion chains tail off towards lead but the vast majority of the power comes down quickly.

[deleted]

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#17

Post by gunapologist99 »

Symbiote wrote: post #3

Where does the 1500MW of heat the reactor is producing go, immediately after the generators are isolated from the grid?

It seems like you might really be asking about a meltdown scenario.

The reaction can be slowed with control rods, which stops/minimizes the heat from being generated. The previously generated heat still needs to be handled, however (by evaporation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

A meltdown occurs when the reaction can't be slowed down through normal means because the safety systems fail.

For example, Fukushima and Chernobyl:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

However, those safety systems are obviously designed expressly to prevent such a disaster. For example, control rod systems are often designed to be fall (via gravity) into the reactor in the event power fails. These failsafe systems are typically very reliable, in the absence of other external events (such as the flooding and earthquake that took place in Fukashima.)

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#18

Post by csours »

Scoundreller wrote: post #10
csours wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water? Same place it was going

I mean, at least some percentage was going down the wire. That’s why we do it, right?

It would be funny if we were doing the whole song and dance just to amuse the electrons.

If the turbines are 50% efficient, then the heat load on the cooling towers would double, which I have to assume is WELL within design limits.

You have made me wonder about turbine overspeed and steam bypass.

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#19

Post by shagie »

floatrock wrote: post #14
gunapologist99 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are extremely expensive per megawatt, not very durable, require carefully controlled temperatures, and their manufacturer and recycling extract a tremendous cost from the environment. For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale. However, there are other ways to store energy; unfortunately, most involve converting electricity to another form of energy such as pot…

> For non-mobile usage, batteries shouldn't be seen as any kind of viable solution at scale. Lithium-ion, sure, but aren't there a whole host of other battery chemistries that are basically too big / too heavy to put on vehicles but a lot cheaper so well suited for stationary storage? Are they all still at the research phase and so currently more expensive than the decades-of-learning-curve lithium-ion?

The vanadium redox flow battery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

> For several reasons, including their relative bulkiness, vanadium batteries are typically used for grid energy storage, i.e., attached to power plants/electrical grids.

    VRFBs' main advantages over other types of battery:

    no limit on energy capacity
    can remain discharged indefinitely without damage
    ...
    wide operating temperature range including passive cooling
    long charge/discharge cycle lives: 15,000-20,000 cycles and 10–20 years.
    low levelized cost: (a few tens of cents), approaching the 2016 $0.05 target stated by the United States Department of Energy and the European Commission Strategic Energy Technology Plan €0.05 target
(and yes, there are disadvantages too)

See also NPR's story: The U.S. made a breakthrough battery discovery — then gave the technology to China https://www.npr.org/2022/08/03/1114964240/new-battery-techno...

Re: How the electricity markets respond to a nuclear trip

#20

Post by kccqzy »

rtkwe wrote: post #9
kccqzy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most curtailment IIRC is due to insufficient transmission capacity. I doubt curtailed solar can be called upon in an emergency unless the emergency is located very close to the curtailed solar.

The transmission lines run to solar farms should be able to take 100% of the output of the farm and then some otherwise the farm was over built and wasted money.

I agree with your use of the word "should" here. But that unfortunately is not what happens in reality.
Post reply on HN