• roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nuclear is not, and cannot be, a gap coverage solution. Due to xenon/iodine poisoning and decay heat management you need to keep a reactor critical as long as possible to be economical. That’s independent of the problem of keeping the water hot that fossil fuel generators share. You can’t just turn a reactor on and off.

    • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It can provide a baseload though where solar can provide extra power during the heat for places where the summer and days are the power intensive part, rather than winter and nights. You still need a short-term stop gap as the sun sets but it’s still hot out, but even if that was just powered by NG it would be a huge step forward. Adding greener energy storage options to store extra power nuclear or wind could generate overnight would be better.

      Btw, could a small percent of nuclear reactors be turned on/off seasonally, potentially transporting fuel between the north in the winter and the south in the summer?

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, but if you spend the money making a reactor, you really should just use it. Uranium is pretty cheap, it’s the reactor that’s expensive.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair. If a grid was just powered by batteries, solar, wind, and existing nuclear plants, which would be the most effective to turn off when demand is too low?

    • a_statistician@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Columbia station load follows within a certain range set by nearby hydro. It can be done. The economics aren’t even that bad, as fuel is one of the cheaper inputs to the reactor.