4 ms·

>Nuclear is the opposite of variable, as it can’t be turned up or down quickly. As far as electrical output is concerned, nuclear power is just as variable as

>Nuclear is the opposite of variable, as it can’t be turned up or down quickly. As far as electrical output is concerned, nuclear power is just as variable as any other turbine based power generation system. Just divert the steam away from the turbines and you are no longer making electricity. Therefore, through creative plumbing, you could easily adjust the amount of power generated by controlling how much steam is going to the turbine. The issue is that while you are diverting steam, you are wasting money by running the reactor.

mkoubaa 5y ago
I wonder if someone made a machine that did carbon removal whose only inputs is power AND there was a bounty paid to remove carbon if you could install them onsite at power plants to deal with this
- ncmncm 5y ago
  That will happen, but it will be driven mainly from solar arrays. A nuclear reservation is generally a good place to lay out solar and wind arrays, whether the plant itself still operates or not.
- Melatonic 5y ago
  Great idea if it worked at all decently - any excess power could go directly toward removing atmospheric carbon. Or some other environmental process that is beneficial. Water purification? Climate modeling datacenters?
- onenukecourse 5y ago
  You don't have to actually remove carbon with excess power. In fact that would be bad environmentally since all you accomplish is removing carbon but you still have process inefficiency. Your statement is globally equivalent to doing something that would be done anyway but is tolerant to interruptions. There are power consumers that can do this and they have a power preferential rate (i.e. they're willing to shut down when the power company calls). Also, what you're saying can be done by, for example, electrolysis of water to make hydrogen. I'm currently working on fuel cells that can be operated in reverse; that is they generate electricity from fossil fuels when needed (at very high efficiency) but absorb excess electricity by producing hydrogen. Really what you're proposing is accomplished more efficiently by stored energy. The problem is that we've tapped out the easy ways to redistribute load, or store energy decades ago.

mkoubaa 5y ago

I wonder if someone made a machine that did carbon removal whose only inputs is power AND there was a bounty paid to remove carbon if you could install them onsite at power plants to deal with this

ncmncm 5y ago
That will happen, but it will be driven mainly from solar arrays. A nuclear reservation is generally a good place to lay out solar and wind arrays, whether the plant itself still operates or not.
Melatonic 5y ago
Great idea if it worked at all decently - any excess power could go directly toward removing atmospheric carbon. Or some other environmental process that is beneficial. Water purification? Climate modeling datacenters?
onenukecourse 5y ago
You don't have to actually remove carbon with excess power. In fact that would be bad environmentally since all you accomplish is removing carbon but you still have process inefficiency. Your statement is globally equivalent to doing something that would be done anyway but is tolerant to interruptions. There are power consumers that can do this and they have a power preferential rate (i.e. they're willing to shut down when the power company calls). Also, what you're saying can be done by, for example, electrolysis of water to make hydrogen. I'm currently working on fuel cells that can be operated in reverse; that is they generate electricity from fossil fuels when needed (at very high efficiency) but absorb excess electricity by producing hydrogen. Really what you're proposing is accomplished more efficiently by stored energy. The problem is that we've tapped out the easy ways to redistribute load, or store energy decades ago.