Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-5213

I would like to be a "devil's advocate" on the capacity factor issue for nuclear in that the high factor in the US statistics is as a result of the reactors allowing their reactors to just run at maximum output - this largely an economic issue. An excellent article by the Breakthrough Institute explains the issue:

https://thebreakthroughjournal.substack.com/p/advanced-nuclear-learns-to-share?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2392380&post_id=145867067&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2o3ybn&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The problem is that if you "flex" electricity production the reactor is not always (or near always) at it's maximum electricity production; thus "flexing" reduces the capacity factor (the power delivered is in the numerator of the metric - this is reduced (less than maximum output due to load following). The impact is largely due to allowing renewables to have priority access to the grid (i.e they are paid in RECs NOT cash and even get paid when the grid is curtailing their power). The assumption within Gencost is that nuclear (even though it's clean power) will NOT have priority access to the NEM and NOT paid when supply exceeds demand - THIS IS BLATANTLY UNFAIR. since both produce emissions free energy It looks to me all a like this is a reflex reaction by the renewables industry to potential competition (i.e let's keep the gravy train rolling)