Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Altair_IV

(52 posts)
16. It depends
Sat Feb 22, 2014, 06:44 PM
Feb 2014

The statement was made that nuclear power plants don't throttle up and down well. That statement is not categorically true. It depends on the answer to "how much".

Reactors can throttle up and down with no problem at all. Many universities have small research reactors that can be pulsed and throttle up to extremely high power for a few nanoseconds. The problem is not the reactor, but the thermal inertia of the Rankine steam plant attached; and in that regard, a nuclear power plant is no different than either a coal-fired or gas-fired Rankine steam cycle.

The Rankine steam cycle can certainly throttle up and down extremely quickly for very small changes in load. These plants have to because they have to respond to the changes in load, and match those changes instant to instant. The cycling up and down to match load changes are within the capability of these plants.

The problem is for very large ramp ups or ramp downs that changes the power by a very significant fraction of the plant's current power level. However, good management of the grid makes such demands extremely rare.

Altair_IV

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Renewables can deliver cleaner energy at the same price, but... DetlefK Feb 2014 #1
In a lot of cases solar and wind could be point of use madokie Feb 2014 #2
The solar roofs of 1000 homes powering a factory? DetlefK Feb 2014 #3
I'm not advocating 100 percent renewables only as much as we can feasibly do which is a lot more madokie Feb 2014 #4
Whether 20 or 500, it's still practically nothing compared to >50 million. DetlefK Feb 2014 #5
What solar would bring wouldn't require an individual control of each madokie Feb 2014 #6
It depends Altair_IV Feb 2014 #16
a lot of the fuel sabbat hunter Feb 2014 #29
Solar-thermal can bank energy into the wee hours Kolesar Feb 2014 #7
I once estimated it would take about 4000 reactors, worldwide phantom power Feb 2014 #8
Choke madokie Feb 2014 #9
It is achievable... phantom power Feb 2014 #11
Accidents happen madokie Feb 2014 #13
Reconsider E = mc2 FBaggins Feb 2014 #12
But how do you get sea water all the way to Oklahoma, kansas, North and South Dakota etc. etc.? madokie Feb 2014 #15
Numerous errors and misconceptions.. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #17
Did you just assume another name? madokie Feb 2014 #18
Welcome back kristopher Feb 2014 #19
Not the UCS Altair_IV Feb 2014 #22
Too bad you never learned to read a citation PamGreg kristopher Feb 2014 #26
Yes you have numerous errors madokie Feb 2014 #21
Students at Stanford? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #23
I suppose a second, possibly third time through madokie Feb 2014 #24
???????? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #25
I'm making myself very clear madokie Feb 2014 #27
Why would we even try? FBaggins Feb 2014 #10
If you dig back to around 2007 cprise Feb 2014 #14
According to Obama's Science Advisor kristopher Feb 2014 #20
That's such a phoney argument Altair_IV Feb 2014 #28
Because he retired he no longer is a Real Scientist madokie Feb 2014 #30
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How many nuclear power pl...»Reply #16