[T]he report’s executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

“The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs,” says the report. “But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb.”

  • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Up our storage game, big time

    I think this can be expanded out a bit, to the more generalizable case of matching generation to demand. Yes, storage can be a big part of that.

    But another solution along the same lines may be demand shifting, which in many ways, relies on storage (charging car batteries, reheating water tanks or even molten salt only when supply is plentiful. And some of that might not be storage, per se, but creating the useful output of something that actually requires a lot of power: timing out industrial processes or data center computational tasks based on the availability of excess electrical power.

    Similarly, improvements in transmission across wide geographical areas can better match supply to demand. The energy can still be used in real time, but a robust enough transmission network can get the power from the place that happens to have good generation conditions at that time to the place that actually wants to use that power.

    There’s a lot of improvement to be made in simply better matching supply and demand. And improvements there might justify intentional overbuilding, where generators know that they’ll need to curtail generation during periods where there’s more supply than demand.

    And with better transmission, then existing nuclear plants might be able to act as dispatchable backup power rather than the primary, and therefore serve a larger market.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s interesting watching how the 30minute electricy price has shifted patterns in the UK. 3-4 years ago there was no doubt that the cheapest time was 1am - 4am. These days the overnight dip isn’t anywhere near as significant as it was, and it’s now equally likely for 1pm-4pm to be the cheapest time of day.

      All I can assume is that so many have moved usage to overnight due to “time of use” tariffs that now the demand curve has evened out a bit, and now the extra supply from solar during the day pushes the afternoon price down.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The timing of all those things has been carefully selected by billions of people. Timing is already super important to humanity for other reasons.

      There is value in the schedule arrangement we have, which is why there is already sufficient demand to have different electric prices at different times and people still pay it.

      The schedule we have arranged contains value. Demand shifting means getting people to do things at times other than they naturally would choose to.

      We can’t talk about things like this like they’re free. There’s a big, real, not easily measurable cost to changing the times of day we use energy.

      Our solution is to serve us, not the other way around.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        We can’t talk about things like this like they’re free.

        Some shifts genuinely are free, though. Wholesale prices for electricity follow a pronounced “duck curve,” and drop to near zero (or even negative) in areas where there’s a substantial solar base, during the day at certain parts of the year. People will shift their demand for non-time-sensitive consumption (heating, cooling, charging of devices/EVs, batched/scheduled jobs) in response to basic price signals. If a substantial amount of future demand is going to be from data centers performing batched/scheduled jobs, like training AI models or encoding video files, a lot of that demand can be algorithmically shifted.

        There are already companies out there intentionally arbitraging the price differences by time of day to invest in large scale storage. That’s an expensive activity, that they’ve determined is worth doing because there’s profit to be made at scale.

        At household scale, individuals can do that too.

        Put another way, we shouldn’t talk about current pricing models where every kilowatt hour costs the same as if that arrangement is free.

        Plus, the timing of consumption already does naturally tend to follow the timing of solar generation. Most people are more active during the day than at night, and work hours reflect that distribution. Overcapacity in solar can go a long way towards meeting demand when it naturally happens.

      • JasonDJ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        There are ways to get demand shift working with residential, but I doubt enough residences would participate.

        A lot comes down to smart grid, and integrating high draw appliances that don’t always need electricity right now. Like fridges and water heaters. Some may come down to residential storage systems charging during off-peak and being used during peak. And using EVs as an extension of residential storage.

        We could also get not so used to expecting a specific level of comfort. Honestly how uncomfortable will we be if the AC or heater doesn’t kick in for 10 extra minutes or so, when the clouds part over the huge solar array 500 miles away and there’s going to be excess.