The Ergosphere
Friday, October 10, 2014
 

A brief study in one of the ways that Greens lie

Mostly, they seem to be lying to themselves.  However, that they repeat falsehoods as fact cannot be disputed and suggests that the entire Green philosophy is one enormous delusion.

A little while ago, I was flabbergasted by one Bob Wallace, moderator, censor and ban-hammer wielder of Cleantechnica.com [1], who flatly stated that nuclear is not dispatchable.  Not just once to me, but many times going back years.

LOLWHUT?!

Digging a little deeper I found that this meme-virus had some fairly old (as the web goes) roots.  The Wikipedia article on dispatchability still says as of 2014-10-08 that nuclear power is not dispatchable.  This claim goes back to the very first version of the page in 2006.

In my research I found a grid operator definition of dispatchable meaning the generator having filed an energy supply curve with the ISO, but I'm unable to find it again.  But the EIA rides to the rescue.  Under "Dispatchable Technologies", it lists:
(there being no un-advanced nuclear entering the market in 2018)

Bob Wallace will probably back-pedal and claim that today's nuclear isn't advanced and isn't dispatchable.  But for the last 30 years, France has been load-following with its fleet of 1980's-vintage PWRs.  How can you follow load, if you can't dispatch generation on demand to follow it?  Ridiculous.

I expect to see more such howlers from Bob Wallace and his ilk.  AAMOF, I would wager that he'd even repeat his "nuclear is not dispatchable" claim after being referred to the EIA page.  In other words, what Bob Wallace says can only be taken as a recitation of Green dogma.  One cannot expect any evidence of independent thought or any acceptance of facts from outside his echo chamber.

A lot of what Bob Wallace says (along with the rest of orthodox Greens) is out-and-out lies.  This is not to say that they are consciously lying.  They may very well have accepted a delusional belief system structured to support the romantic Green vision, and can't pry themselves away from it.  But that means that they have, for all intents and purposes, surrendered their ability to think.  Without the ability to actually reason from facts, even uncomfortable facts, they are intellectual zombies:  shambling along, eating the brains of those too slow to evade them and turning them into more like themselves.

And that, folks, is why so much discussion of our energy future is Sofa King Stew Pit.

Footnotes:
1 He doesn't like it when you use the phrase "put you in my crosshairs".  There's a list of other things he doesn't like, none of which are noted prominently enough for the casual Cleantechnica commenter to have any idea what they are before being censored, banned or both for transgressing them.

 
Comments:
Dispatch-ability of nuc plants..... hmmmm... OK this is were the rubber meets the road... how quickly can the nuc plants follow a variable load???? How about the over head cost.... carrying cost of the infrastructure... base load plants are usually high construction cost... low operating (cheap fuel). Can a coal plant be a load following plant.... well some of them can after a fashion..... it is cost effective..... NOT!!!!!!


Ok so how about quoting variable real output to the grid of these "load following nucs"... and then lets chat about $/Kwhr average production cost from these plants... including carrying costs... And seeing as we are not going to be "subsidizing" any power generation.... take away the government give me's to all the power producers.... including the big nucs...... lol

Now lets compare apples to apples...

In my opinion these is very little difference on faux stupid greenies and big utility industry shills ....

Now... how about some critical thinking and some HARD fact based numbers!!!

(shame on both of you for quoting Wiki.... are you still in high school???)
 
" OK this is were the rubber meets the road... how quickly can the nuc plants follow a variable load????"

Obviously, fast enough since France has been doing it for decades.  The figures I've been seeing from those in the know are like ±15 MW step change, and ramp rates of ±10 MW/minute.

The real issue is that there is no point trying to follow the ups and downs of "renewables".  The renewables should be made to buffer or curtail their own variability.  Since nuclear plants are refueled on a schedule and not by MWh generated, the marginal cost of running at 100% vs. 80% is zero.  When we are choosing between zero-carbon generators, the one that's easy to turn down should be turned down first.  That way, when something needs to be turned up, there's zero-carbon capacity available instead of having to turn to fossil-fired generators.  If that costs some generator a chunk of Production Tax Credit, it serves them right for over-building in the first place.

The current demand that "renewables" have priority over everything else is a ploy to force zero-carbon nuclear off the grid and expand the market for fossil fuels, primary natural gas.

"Can a coal plant be a load following plant.... well some of them can after a fashion..... it is cost effective..... NOT!!!!!!"

Germany is using black coal in its load-following plants.  Dirty, but effective.  That's what they decided to use instead of their already-built nuclear fleet.

"Ok so how about quoting variable real output to the grid of these "load following nucs"... and then lets chat about $/Kwhr average production cost from these plants... including carrying costs..."

Yes, Megan, why don't you?  I don't see a single figure or link in your entire comment.  Why didn't you take your opportunity to actually TALK ABOUT PRODUCTION COSTS?  Can you only cast aspersions?  Are you innumerate (selectively or generally)?

Nuclear Sweden, France and Ontario have low and reasonable electric prices.  "Renewable" Denmark and Germany do not.

"(shame on both of you for quoting Wiki.... are you still in high school???)"

When one is tracing the origins of propaganda, Wikipedia is as valid a source as any.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home
Talk largely about energy and work, but also politics and other random thoughts


Mail Engineer-Poet

(If you're mailing a question, is it already in the FAQ?)

Important links

The FAQ
Glossary
The Reference Library

Blogchild of

Armed and Dangerous

Blogparent of

R-Squared




The best prospect for our energy future:
Flibe Energy

ARCHIVES
January 1990 / February 2004 / March 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / August 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / April 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / February 2015 / April 2015 / October 2015 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 /


Powered by Blogger

RSS feed

Visits since 2006/05/11: