…f gas, and I believe wind, over current nuclear is that they are better at load following. Are newer reactor designs able to follow demand, as they would have to if nuclear rose to 80% or more of output ? cyril r. We shouldn’t waste technetium. Its a valuable industrial catalyst, and, perhaps more interestingly, increases the corrosion resistance of many alloys used in the nuclear industry. cyril r. Yes they are, in France they throttle down (and…
…old conditions. Carl L I had not spent enough time at a B&W plant to learn load reject capability. At my used to plant, following turbine trip, Steam Bypass Control Valves (maybe called Turbine bypass valves or Secondary PORVs at other plants) fast opened (~1 second) to assume secondary load dumping steam to condenser. Additional bypass valves dumped to atmosphere if additional capacity is needed. Simultaneously, Reactor Power Cutback system (RPCS…
…d). Which makes nuclear cheaper in the long run. Then when we consider the load-following issues of wind and the need for gas backup, the bigger problem becomes clear: wind isn’t really fossil-free. You can’t get to zero fossil emissions with a renewable-only system, unless you massively overbuild and accept equally massive curtailments during windy periods, both of which would drive the price of wind up to stratospheric heights. Nuclear doesn’t h…
…ely and constantly regulate their power from near zero to 100% as needed.” Load following is not typically done with Gen II US plants, they are run at baseload. This is due to the fact that they are often the lowest marginal cost generators supplying the grid, but also due to complications from buildup or burnout of the fission product Xe135, a powerful neutron poison. That is not to say that it is impossible – in France they use their most recent…
…, but a step in the right direction. GC @John Chatelle Well since EDF uses load following with the nuke reactors (and some hydro to manage the evening peak) nuclear “destroys” gas consumption. The goal of EDF ,as it is a (partly) public company, is to produce electricity as cheap as possible so they’ll always favor nuclear against gas. The only situation where gas and coal are used is during the winter peak but gas never produces more than 6-7% ev…
…of generation, which is far from 100%. They have to do a certain amount of load following. They have reactors that they shut down over the weekend when demand is lower. All of this impacts fuel efficiency. You can’t run reactors like this and expect to achieve the same burnups that the US fleet of reactors currently achieves. Bas Gresnigt @E-P, Your first link refers to a new offshore wind farm in UK with expected lifespan of 40years. That, as wel…
…to seriously study small modular reactors (SMRs) as a future source of baseload electrical supply. We believe SMR technology has advanced to the point that it may be the cleanest, safest and most cost-effective long-term solution to ensure stable, reliable, well-priced electrical power for UAMPS members over the next several decades. Our coal properties have been baseload workhorses for decades. But they are reaching the end of their life cycles,…
…le it’s output from 0MW to 80MW depending on the connected load and do the load following automatically. You now have a system that can really help an island to develop! A small highly trained crew can watch and maintain the system, keeping things in repair while the people can just plug in their new stuff with no worries. Stores and Factories (small at that level) can be up and running without worries. Less power drawn down means the fuel lasts l…
…real question, and I definitely see your point. It would be nice to find a load following resource that produces no waste, emissions, is affordable, has no international security concerns, promotes conservation and intelligent use, is scalable for big communities and small (well developed and developing), grows the economy, has modest impacts when it fails, and is sustainable in it’s environmental footprint. I’m just not convinced this is nuclear…
…al was being burnt at 85% capacity factor (baseload), gas at 20% (variable load/load following), and nuclear at 90%. Our current nuclear capacity factor is 93% and its hard to see much improvement from LWR’s. If we wish to replace just the baseload coal with baseload nuclear by 2050, we will need 300 * 85/93 = 275 GW new nuclear capacity installed over 30 (if we start in 2020) or 35 years if we start in 2015, or 9GW each year. That’s 7.5 AP1000, 6…
…cost break through of LFTRs would offer a unique potential to replace the load following and back up capacities of natural gas. I pointed out some time ago, that the LFTR would make the ideal low carbon backup for wind, but the problem with a LFTR wind backup, is that wind generators becomes an unneeded expense, LFTRs can do the whole job and cost less. On the other hand there are also things like this, reproduced here for you viewing pleasure: C…
…green energy which the US uses only account for about 5% of the total baseload. That is good, BUT it’s not enough and won’t be enough for the next 40 to 50 years of US Government subsidies to achieve the needed baseload which we have now. Natural gas is subject to market fluctuations. Coal is the greatest polluter, and natural gas comes in at about 1/5 of coal for polluting. Nuclear power which accounts for 20% of the US baseload has the drawback…
End of content
End of content