4 ms·
>Nukes can operate as peaker plants. Not in an economical fashion, though. Because the fixed costs dominate the variable costs, the less often the plant operat
by lambdatronics 5y ago
>Nukes can operate as peaker plants.
Not in an economical fashion, though. Because the fixed costs dominate the variable costs, the less often the plant operates, the more it needs to charge for electricity when it is running. Gas peaker plants work the opposite way: low capital cost, significant variable cost (price of gas). That's more suited to the role.
>how are we going to make the ammonia?
From surplus renewables at other times of the year. Part of the solution is going to be overbuilding renewables by some factor, maybe 1.5x, compared to the total annual electrical energy demand. Ammonia is basically a way to store that surplus on a seasonal timescale for backup generation, in a more cost-effective way than batteries. Plus, we also need ammonia for fertilizer, and maybe it will be used for transportation (shipping especially).
- R0b0t1 5y agoYou're not getting it. You keep the plant on all the time. When you need to reduce power you insert the control rods. You lose some efficiency, but you do burn the fuel less fast as well; you're getting so much energy out of the nuclear fuel it's irrelevant. This is established science and reactor design, it's not new. What I learned from a friend who works in power is there's red tape constrains on doing power variation which is why they don't do it.