That’s a super basic view on the science of nuclear power. As an engineer, I need a lot more than that, because it needs a lot more to put basic principles into working projects.
So, is there a nuclear powerplant, that exists outside of some powerpoint slides, that is actually used to match fluctuating generation from other energy sources and/or fluctuating demands?
All of the ones I know are/were used to provide a base supply by running more or less 24/7 at their designated output, not least because they need to do that to be even somehow economically feasible.
They do it in France. The term to google is “load following” nuclear power plants. All new ones have the capability.
Most are used for base load power generation, but this is for economic reasons (getting your money’s worth out of an expensive-to-build facility), not technical feasibility.
Natural gas is a cheaper load following alternative, but that isn’t an option when we’re talking about replacing fossil fuels.
I only had the time to read the executive summary of this thing, but I learned a bit more about nuclear power plants.
It’s still not enough for me to evaluate how well that can integrate with a grid dominated by renewables (can the load following be fast enough, to match wind and solar fluctuations) but still good to know more.
That’s a super basic view on the science of nuclear power. As an engineer, I need a lot more than that, because it needs a lot more to put basic principles into working projects.
So, is there a nuclear powerplant, that exists outside of some powerpoint slides, that is actually used to match fluctuating generation from other energy sources and/or fluctuating demands?
All of the ones I know are/were used to provide a base supply by running more or less 24/7 at their designated output, not least because they need to do that to be even somehow economically feasible.
They do it in France. The term to google is “load following” nuclear power plants. All new ones have the capability.
Most are used for base load power generation, but this is for economic reasons (getting your money’s worth out of an expensive-to-build facility), not technical feasibility.
Natural gas is a cheaper load following alternative, but that isn’t an option when we’re talking about replacing fossil fuels.
Kudos for a measured response to my sometimes snarky tone.
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/12/technical-and-economic-aspects-of-load-following-with-nuclear-power-plants_30eb3b02/29e7df00-en.pdf
I only had the time to read the executive summary of this thing, but I learned a bit more about nuclear power plants.
It’s still not enough for me to evaluate how well that can integrate with a grid dominated by renewables (can the load following be fast enough, to match wind and solar fluctuations) but still good to know more.