Seaver Wang Profile picture
May 7 31 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Ketan mocks inertia chatter re: Spain outage while misunderstanding inertia. Inertia doesn’t scale with generation output but rather with spinning generator mass. Spain had 4 reactors online, 2 at 70% power. Inertia equivalent to 4 reactors at full power!

More thoughts below.🧵 Image
In his blog post + thread, Ketan shares ~10 graphs of Spanish grid data to show how in April 2025 Spain’s nuclear fleet was generating at historic record lows. Except it’s largely misleading as nuclear generation is a poor proxy for the % of grid-forming resources on the grid. Image
Inertia scales w kinetic energy of spinning generators, which are synced to grid at fixed rpm even if output to the grid is reduced.

Spain: 2/4 nuclear units at 70% power but inertia equiv to 4 units at full power. This is in line with other past spring/fall shoulder seasons. Image
Ketan later casts shade at what he claims are the high costs of nuclear “reliable” services… except on the day of Spain’s outage from a pure inertia perspective 4 units were providing the same amount of inertia to the grid... for less compensation than usual.
Re: drawing attention to low nuclear generation… In the past others have criticized nuclear for *not* load following + adjusting output to match RE generation. Now load following + output adjustment to match RE is evidence of nuclear’s unreliability. Pick one!
Very crucially, nuclear-powered generators are hardly the only generators providing inertia on the grid. The actual relevant metric is the total inertia from all synchronous generators operating at a given moment: hydro, gas, nuclear, coal, cogen, even solar thermal. Image
Ketan’s own graphs show how relative to last April, Spain’s nuclear output was lower… but gas generation this April was higher than last April by enough to compensate for much of lower nuclear output. Then we must consider other technologies’ inertia. Image
April is also historically a shoulder season with lower power demand given people are running heat/air con less frequently. If Ember data is correct, April 2025 may have been Spain’s third-lowest electricity monthly demand in the past decade. Important context! Image
Overall Ketan vigorously argues nuclear wasn’t providing “reliable” services yet hasn’t gotten scrutiny renewables have re: Spain. But the reason why there’s little criticism of nuclear is b/c low availability of nuclear is a non-story.

Let's consider power markets. Image
Grid operators are required to keep a stable grid, and procure power in advance to meet likely demand, picking lower-priced generators first. If more assets are needed to stabilize grid, operators can buy supplemental power + bring more gens online.

eldiario.es/economia/nucle…
Imagine a factory where employees compete each morning on the wage they’re willing to get. Spain’s grid opted not to work some nuclear employees in April, and didn’t call them on an emergency basis.

If the production line fails, does one blame the employees on unpaid leave?
The weeks prior to the outage don’t particularly matter. What matters is the day of the outage, and the combination of operational decisions + market factors that meant the resources actually online that day couldn’t handle the contingency they encountered.
Does the failure of some nuclear to clear Spain’s power auction in mid-late April mean nuclear is expensive? Spanish industry says they need 60 EUR/MWh to break even. But ~1/3rd of this is a spent fuel management tax, else they could do 40 EUR/MWh.

decouple.media/p/the-iberian-…
Yet frankly I imagine some pro-100% renewable academics would fall on their knees crying uncontrollably in gratitude if they could get a green hydrogen-powered combined cycle power plant running today for 60 EUR/MWh.

Likely many gas peakers need 40-60+ EUR/MWh to run. These will need analogues in a future fully clean grid which won’t be cheap either!

Likely new Portuguese offshore wind would need 40-60 EUR/MWh or more, subsidies inclusive, to justify projects. So what is “expensive”?
Infantry are cheaper than tanks, artillery, and surface-to-air missile systems, but one doesn’t build a modern army with nothing but men holding rifles. It turns out a system operates more effectively overall with a mix of cheap and expensive capabilities!
Furthermore, charging Spanish nuclear plants an expensive spent fuel management tax is a political choice. One could reduce this tax. One could levy this tax on petrol sales or gas generation. One could cooperate with European partners on a joint spent fuel solution.
@guillemtweets explains for @DecoupleMedia the spent fuel tax is costly b/c while Spain once approved a centralized fuel repository, opposition incl from enviro groups killed the project. Now plants are duplicating effort, building onsite storage parks.

decouple.media/p/the-iberian-…
This raises a final important point which is that while Ketan perceives attacks against renewables from pro-nuclear advocates, nuclear power has been under political attack for a long time too that aims to even deny it fair parity alongside clean renewables.
Sure, Ketan + many others often get triggered by criticism of RE from anon pro-nuclear “reply guys” with generic profile pictures + names... as if that really should color their thinking about a valuable clean energy technology that has much to offer energy transition efforts.
Yet criticism of nuclear is coming from even the Spanish Prime Minister who during the outage blamed nuclear for coming back online slowly (despite this being prescribed by regulations + best practices) + is dismissing calls to rethink nuclear phaseout

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
From 1983-1997 Spain implemented a moratorium on new nuclear construction, causing the cancelation of up to 5 planned reactor projects—history Ketan completely omits to mention.

Then of course there’s the policy of nuclear phaseout planned for 2027-2035.
I’d also point out that there are indeed at least some articles that provide level commentary on whether nuclear has been slow to restart, and on the fact that some units were offline pre-outage.

eldiario.es/economia/nucle…
Ultimately yes, there are some nuclear advocates who want nuclear-only and will put down renewables to get it (unreasonable imo). But many nuclear advocates just want fair treatment for nuclear alongside other clean energy, which Spanish policy currently opposes.
My perspective is simple + I’ve been very consistent: - Smart inverters, synchronous condensers + storage can enable high wind + solar % on the grid, but you have to **actually** build those things. - Spain should keep using nuclear energy.

In response, Ketan has singled me out in this piece + on social media as a “evidence-free bro” trying to create a "Fukushima moment" for RE. I likely partly motivated him to write this piece calling attention to the lack of discussion of Spanish nuclear’s shortcomings. Image
But Ketan’s effort to build a counternarrative re: low Spanish nuclear generation in April 2025 is flawed, despite all his graphs.
- Available inertia from Spanish nuclear was consistent with past yrs
- What matters is total system inertia, not just inertia from nuclear Image
- It is the responsibility of grid operators to procure resources needed to keep the grid stable. They had multiple mechanisms to procure more nuclear and chose not to.
- Spanish nuclear is not that expensive for what it represents: clean firm generation.
Ultimately Ketan presents a paradox.

Low nuclear pre-outage only deserves discussion if nuclear *is* useful for complementing high RE.

If nuclear doesn’t usefully support RE reliability-wise, then it’s *correct* for nobody to be talking about low Spanish nuclear.
So which is it? You have to pick!

As I’ve argued in this thread and elsewhere, nuclear provides value. The reliability value provided by nuclear on the day of the outage was a relatively normal level chosen by the grid operators. Hence this is a non-story.

END
P.S. re: fairness, quote-tweeting + tagging. Ketan Joshi left Twitter but I tagged him in a similar thread over in the land of bluer skies + we are currently duking it out there in the replies. So he's aware of this exchange.

(He generally was not so generous towards me)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Seaver Wang

Seaver Wang Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @wang_seaver

Mar 11
21 House Republicans just wrote a letter urging continued IRA energy credits. Most have solar/wind projects or clean tech factories in district, or are in swing districts. THREAD🧵

Arizona 6th - Juan Ciscomani - Many solar projects. Battery factories in Tucson. Swing district. Image
California 20th - Vince Fong - Bakersfield area, R+16 district but lots of solar and amazing solar resource potential especially to the southeast near Edwards Air Force Base, some good wind resource in the Tehachapi Mountains. Image
California 22nd - David G. Valadao - Bakersfield area neighboring the 20th district, lots of solar developments in the larger I-5 highway corridor. Competitive district. Image
Read 22 tweets
Apr 25, 2024
To supply low-carbon power to a grid via nuclear, solar, wind, or grid batteries, how much material must we dig up to build those power plants?
Answer: far less than for fossil fuels, with nuclear needing the least mining. New @TheBTI report by my team:
thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
Image
Big takeaways:
Coal? Digs ~1.18 million kgs of rock+coal per GWh for fuel only
Solar+wind have improved much in last 10 yrs
Nuclear still needs least mining + critical minerals per GWh
Cu, steel, Ni, Li, U, Ag offer ways to improve mining footprint further
thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
What inspired this analysis? Energy transition mining remains divisive, but discussions often cite flawed or out-of-date data, or end up handwavy. For this analysis, we wanted to make an up-to-date comparison, w transparent methodology using public sources
apps.openei.org/REMPD/
Read 24 tweets
Jan 28, 2024
From 2018 to 2023, silver use in solar PV cells has dropped by around half! (h/t @solar_chase)

Indeed academic papers (incl my own) tend to lean several yrs out of date. But industry intel is often paywalled, hence my habit of obnoxiously saving whatever nuggets I come across. Image
This is a clear example of why getting the stamp of peer-review doesn't mean something is right or the golden truth of science.

The most crucial round of peer review is really the permanent, continuous reactions/feedback from other experts once a study is actually publicly read.
I had assumed 10g per watt in my @Joule_CP paper, and had thought afterwards that might've been generous--but now it's right on the money.

Where I was way off was concrete, which is no longer used to anchor solar mountings in most utility-scale plants.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Read 4 tweets
Aug 15, 2023
Finally found time yesterday evening to take an unofficial satellite's-eye-view tour of the quasi-legendary Spruce Pine ultra-high-purity quartz mine in North Carolina.

It'd be an understatement to say this mine is currently key to the semiconductor + solar PV industries. 🧵 Image
IIRC, there's no other ultra-high-purity quartz mine of this scale, creating quite the potential bottleneck. A fire at a Spruce Pine facility may have contributed to the 2008 spike in polysilicon prices that arguably set off the last decade's solar boom.

Ultra-high-purity quartz is used for chip factory tools + crucibles used to contain molten silicon during manufacturing of ultrapure monocrystalline silicon ingots for chips + solar PV wafers via the Czochralski process. Pure quartz reduces impurities in the resulting product. Image
Read 11 tweets
Jul 27, 2023
Expanding energy access + clean energy in Asia + Africa won’t be as easy as many high-profile “100% renewable” papers suggest.

My new analysis shows how 100% RE models on Asia/Africa assume implausibly low costs + overlook key infrastructure challenges.

thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
A flashy review paper from @ChristianOnRE + coauthors allegedly compiling hundreds of “100% renewable energy system” studies worldwide has received a lot of recent attention.

But this isn’t as big/rigorous of a field as such stated numbers might imply.

https://t.co/L23TRAoo9C
Image
Given my interests in Asia climate/energy policy, I noticed this review generating buzz early on, and was keen to dig deeper.

I noticed some funny things at a first glance (see linked thread), but over the past months I found much more serious issues...

Read 27 tweets
Jul 26, 2023
Untangling @enricomariutti's solar PV CO2 analysis as quoted by Shellenberger, Part 2

To his great credit, Enrico has made his calculations available, emphasizing he has nothing to hide.

In the same spirit I agreed to take a close look--and I think I've isolated the key issues. Image
I’m going to work through these numbers step by step below.

I’ve made a copy of Enrico’s calculations sheet that I’ll share here in case anybody else wants to take a look. Fair warning, the units change often and are not clearly denoted:

https://t.co/JvyYOngSGLdocs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Image
LIFETIME GENERATION:

Enrico uses the full equivalent hours method here, assuming generation at full capacity for the equivalent of 1137 hours/yr in Italy. Other key factors include 25 year lifetime, module degradation at 2% the 1st year + 0.5%/yr thereafter, and 5.6% grid losses Image
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(