Gernot WagnerWhile the Trump administration tries to cancel offshore wind for "national security" reasons, here's the CEO of Ukraine's largest private energy company
Bob Downie@gwagner In a nutshell this is why building more #nuclear power plants in the #UK makes our energy supply and our nation highly insecure in time of war. A couple of well targeted strikes and not only do we lose a large chunk of base load power, release of nuclear materials will cause chaos and environmental disaster. #renewableenergy
Svante@geomannie @gwagner Not doing nuclear at all clearly seems to be an overreaction.
Nuclear containment buildings are very difficult to damage even with well-targeted and massive strikes. A weak spot for some models is external power supply, but this is solved with »island mode«, which is established tech already for decades.
On top of that, attacking nuclear facilities makes you a pariah internationally.
And the alternative is not really more resilient, as seen in Spain in April.
BilliglarperOh yeah, the Iberian Peninsuela Blackout.
Started by multiple problems with the grid, not with renewables.
And then crashed when the frequency reached 48Hz and 3.3 GW of nuclear power generation suddenly went offline (among others, a total of 15 GW).
The grid was back to normal after 23 hours. But most of the nuclear plants weren't back even after 3 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackout
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner The nuclear plants didn't have island mode (apparently a cost decision). But that's not the point. All plants go offline when the grid becomes unstable.
The point is: a big grid with lots of fluctuating input is not resilient, because it is getting harder and harder to maintain the frequency invariant throughout.
This is definitely not better in terms of resiliency compared to fewer and bigger, but grid-forming plants.
But you can actually take of multiple smaller plants at slightly differing frequencies to create a buffer. (With inverters of small plants that's basically a software setting.) And not at 48.0 Hz sharp like the nuclear plants and others in spain did.
The initial disturbance was caused by a loss of 2.2 GW and might still have been salvagable. But not after the nuclear plants (3.3 GW) and others dropped out all at once.
And to help stabilize the grid frequency, one doesn't need expensive and unreliable nuclear plants. Synchronous condensers and battery storage does this better and cheaper. No suddenly going offline and exacerbating the problems.
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner
- Nuclear power plants are very reliable. Dropping an »unreliable« claim is just a casual lie.
- »Suddenly going offline« happens AFTER the shit hit the fan, to protect people and equipment from sudden power surges.
- All the measures you now envision to counter the problems do not exist yet, mean a lot of effort, and are a huge (almost) hidden cost of having lots of fluctuating energy sources.
#Nuclear plants regularly shut down during heatwaves (1), Gravelines took 4 reactors offline due to jellyfish (2), Flammanville will have replace faulty reactor cover in 2026 (3). And we both remember 2022, when more than half the nuclear plants in France went offline due to unforseen corrosion damage. (4)
France and Switzerland shut down nuclear power plants due to heatwave
To cool down, nuclear power plants pump water from local rivers or the sea, which they then release back into water bodies at a higher temperature. However, this process can threaten local biodiversity if water is released which is too hot.
Batteries and flywheels are simple indeed. You might not have noticed, since they seem to stay within budget and timeframe. But they are a standard solution.
Synchronous condenser example from Germany:
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/press-releases/siemens-energy-technology-stabilizes-german-power-grid.html
From Ireland:
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/stories/irelands-great-grid-stabilizer.html
And so on:
https://new.abb.com/motors-generators/synchronous-condensers
#Renewables #GridStability #PowerGrid #Flywheel #SynchronousCondenser #nuclear
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner How many of those do you need for a grid of, say, the size of Spain? How much storage?
Why don't you tell me? I mean, you are against them, so you did base this on facts and not ideology, didn't you? :)
I really don't like sealioning and murmurs.
Spain having about 6 fossil fuel plants and 7 nuclear plants might give you an upper limit on the inertia. (4 NPPs and at least 1 FFP were offline at the time of the blackout, iirc.)
Same for backup power generation.
And you actually need less with battery power in the mix, since they react faster.
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner I am not against them. I am for all clean energy sources. I am for making it work.
I'm against dismissing working, clean, grid-forming, actual power plants for made-up rationalizations stemming from pure anti-nuclear FUD.
- A clean grid containing nuclear plants is not especially vulnerable to war conditions, nor is it somehow less reliable.
- A hypothetical clean grid containing no nuclear plants is not in any way more resilient.
And you dodged providing facts and are back repeating your opinions.
Have a good morning.
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner That's an interesting rhethoric strategy: someone makes a wild claim, someone else objects, and then only the objection is held to high standards.
Does it have a name?
"nuclear works, believe me, bro"
Often in combjnation with
"nuclear and renewables synergize really well",
"flywheels and batteries are completely new tech, but this small reactor prototype by a startup will work for sure"
and
"centralized grids are no disadvantage in war"
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner
Of course nuclear works. ~450 reactors currently provide for 10% of the world's electricity supply.
Wind and solar work, too, within limits.
»nuclear plants are unreliable and vulnerable« (false)
»grids with lots of wind and solar are less centralized than grids with large, dispatchable power plants« (false)
»the problems of a too-high share of wind and solar can be easily solved with a few flywheels and batteries« (false)
Oh, strawmen and false claims, but zero facts. 🥱
Thanks for making my point, have a good day.
@billiglarper @geomannie @gwagner
(1) The reduction in output of the nuclear fleet in France due to heat amounts to about 0.5% of the total.
(2) and (3) are isolated incidents with similarly negligible impact. A certain frequency of such incidents is expected and accounted for.
(4) was unusual, but even this extreme case was successfully handled. I think it also served as a wake-up call that France would have to expand its own power reserves.
Show me a more reliable source.