4 ms·

I'm not an expert, but I'm not convinced about it reducing the need to maintain a nationwide grid. Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. It's basical

I'm not an expert, but I'm not convinced about it reducing the need to maintain a nationwide grid. Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. It's basically going to be generating the same amount of power 24x7, but demand is going to fluctuate. The more other areas you're connected to, the more opportunity there is to send that power to someone who can use it. Obviously there's a law of diminishing returns at some point, so maybe the grid doesn't need to be as large as possible. There are alternatives like energy storage (batteries, etc.), but you'd have to compare all the costs and benefits.

m463 6y ago
I can see that if these are distributed, the grid can be more of a mesh than spokes on a wheel. solar can do the same sort of thing.
liability 6y ago
> Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. Naval reactors are apparently very fast in this regard, so it's evidently not an inherent property of nuclear power. (The USN also has an unparalleled record of safely operating reactors; more that 5,000 reactor-years clocked without major incident.)
- trimbo 6y ago
  Does it count that a Navy man was killed at SL-1? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/67718734/richard-carlton-legg https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/67718734/richard-carlton...
  - liability 6y ago
    SL-1 was an Army reactor, so I would say it doesn't count. I'd also not count the USS Thresher or the USS Scorpion, since reactor accidents weren't the reason those sank.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Relative to how many people die every year from wood and coal smoke? I would say it doesn't count in a relative sense.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Naval reactors are apparently very fast in this regard, so it's evidently not an inherent property of nuclear power. Ramping up is easy, ramping down... not so much. It's not as much of an issue if you swim in your coolant, hence naval reactors are unique in being able to ramp both up, and down quickly.
  - liability 6y ago
    Most civil reactors are next to lakes or rivers so it seems like they should have plenty of water. Is it a matter of civil reactors using smaller[cheaper] plumbing and pumps? My intuition is that Naval reactors are built to be very responsive because that's useful for naval applications, but civil reactors aren't built like that because that ability has less relative value for civil reactors.
stickfigure 6y ago
Nukes are slow from a cold start but they can throttle up and down with load. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Nuc... Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope.
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  Wow, that's pretty fast. So 12 minutes worst case. TIL. Still, I wonder if the economics don't favor running near 100%. You've already paid the high up-front cost of the equipment, and fuel costs are low, so I assume you're better off selling excess power when possible.
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    I'd be willing to bet there are some significant thermal efficiency losses at 100% that would push you down closer to (made up number incoming) 80% at idle
  - jabl 6y ago
    Of course. Though with increasing deployment of intermittent sources like wind and solar, occasionally the wholesale price can drop lower than the marginal cost of the nuclear plant (or even negative, if said power sources receive production subsidies regardless of the wholesale price), in which case it makes sense to throttle down. Future grids with more intermittent renewables will have increasingly volatile prices, but not necessarily lower on average. So generators that can produce during high price periods (e.g. if wind and solar aren't producing much) can make a lot of money then, compensating for less income during low price periods.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  What's the maneuvering ability of a coal plant? I looked at the article, but didn't see it.
  - 6y ago
deegles 6y ago
> Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. Run them at full blast and dump the extra energy into direct air carbon capture? Of course that would require building the CC plants but it could be planned for.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  That's the whole point of creating grid-scale storage - giant batteries, lots of smaller batteries, pumped storage, pressurized air storage, traction railways, etc - or smarten up loads like EV charging so they can ramp up/down to soften the fluctuations in demand from other sources.
- p1mrx 6y ago
  You'd probably just connect carbon capture plants to the grid, and run them when electricity is cheap for any reason (presumably any fossil sources have no reason to run at this time...) On a grid with enough opportunistic loads, you'd never need to ramp down reactors.

m463 6y ago

I can see that if these are distributed, the grid can be more of a mesh than spokes on a wheel. solar can do the same sort of thing.

liability 6y ago

> Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. Naval reactors are apparently very fast in this regard, so it's evidently not an inherent property of nuclear power. (The USN also has an unparalleled record of safely operating reactors; more that 5,000 reactor-years clocked without major incident.)

trimbo 6y ago
Does it count that a Navy man was killed at SL-1? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/67718734/richard-carlton-legg https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/67718734/richard-carlton...
- liability 6y ago
  SL-1 was an Army reactor, so I would say it doesn't count. I'd also not count the USS Thresher or the USS Scorpion, since reactor accidents weren't the reason those sank.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Relative to how many people die every year from wood and coal smoke? I would say it doesn't count in a relative sense.
baybal2 6y ago
> Naval reactors are apparently very fast in this regard, so it's evidently not an inherent property of nuclear power. Ramping up is easy, ramping down... not so much. It's not as much of an issue if you swim in your coolant, hence naval reactors are unique in being able to ramp both up, and down quickly.
- liability 6y ago
  Most civil reactors are next to lakes or rivers so it seems like they should have plenty of water. Is it a matter of civil reactors using smaller[cheaper] plumbing and pumps? My intuition is that Naval reactors are built to be very responsive because that's useful for naval applications, but civil reactors aren't built like that because that ability has less relative value for civil reactors.

stickfigure 6y ago

Nukes are slow from a cold start but they can throttle up and down with load. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Nuc... Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope.

adrianmonk 6y ago
Wow, that's pretty fast. So 12 minutes worst case. TIL. Still, I wonder if the economics don't favor running near 100%. You've already paid the high up-front cost of the equipment, and fuel costs are low, so I assume you're better off selling excess power when possible.
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  I'd be willing to bet there are some significant thermal efficiency losses at 100% that would push you down closer to (made up number incoming) 80% at idle
- jabl 6y ago
  Of course. Though with increasing deployment of intermittent sources like wind and solar, occasionally the wholesale price can drop lower than the marginal cost of the nuclear plant (or even negative, if said power sources receive production subsidies regardless of the wholesale price), in which case it makes sense to throttle down. Future grids with more intermittent renewables will have increasingly volatile prices, but not necessarily lower on average. So generators that can produce during high price periods (e.g. if wind and solar aren't producing much) can make a lot of money then, compensating for less income during low price periods.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
What's the maneuvering ability of a coal plant? I looked at the article, but didn't see it.
- 6y ago

deegles 6y ago

> Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. Run them at full blast and dump the extra energy into direct air carbon capture? Of course that would require building the CC plants but it could be planned for.

URSpider94 6y ago
That's the whole point of creating grid-scale storage - giant batteries, lots of smaller batteries, pumped storage, pressurized air storage, traction railways, etc - or smarten up loads like EV charging so they can ramp up/down to soften the fluctuations in demand from other sources.
p1mrx 6y ago
You'd probably just connect carbon capture plants to the grid, and run them when electricity is cheap for any reason (presumably any fossil sources have no reason to run at this time...) On a grid with enough opportunistic loads, you'd never need to ramp down reactors.