Technology

59105 readers

3200 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

278

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled::NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Peak load is during the day, so initially it's not really a problem. Going from a grid that's 0% solar to 10% solar is really easy. The solar is going to just displace peaker plants. You don't really have to worry about night.

Going from a grid that's 70% solar to 80% solar is way more expensive, because you're probably using all that power at night.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

You don't go all in on solar, that's dumb and unnecessary. The wind blows when the sun doesn't shine. We have lots of historical data on how the two would perform and how long a lull would be when neither are performing. Pad that number, put in enough storage to cover that period, and there you go.

Getting to 95% solar/wind/storage is relatively easy. Nuclear does not help this mix. It just makes it more expensive.