4 ms·

btw... there is _HUGE_ difference between it is possible to do something in theory than in praxis, there is NO nuclear reactor that could scale in short periods

by merb 4y ago

btw... there is _HUGE_ difference between it is possible to do something in theory than in praxis, there is NO nuclear reactor that could scale in short periods of time. france which is _HUGE_ on nuclear still has at least ~7-12% of gas (depending if they can use solar and wind or not) and they still import power. so it's basically bullshit that it's just economically efficient, it's simple not possible, else it would've been done, but there are only load following plants and not more and there are still no small plants or fusion plants or some other stuff.

StillBored 4y ago
Its not theory, the US navy doesn't run gas backup plants on the subs/carriers. Their reactors follow the load, and its not an insignificant variation, since propulsion is on demand and in the case of a sub, likely the largest consumer.
- merb 4y ago
  1. they use diesel generators as backup (they need to and it's a safety net) 2. they follow the load but they also pump out unnecessary energy (heat) into the ocean (you can't do that with normal reactors, BECAUSE you don't have infinite cooling water) 3. it's way smaller and the load is way smaller < 100 MW which of course makes load following way way more easier
  - StillBored 4y ago
    Emergency use != load following. The fact that sometimes energy needs to be dumped != system cannot be throttled. And a huge number of nuke plants are already on the coast so, they have just as much water as a sub (not that this really matters). And I suspect size isn't really a factor here, its more about time variance, which I suspect is higher on a ship than its is on the grid. The grid wouldn't be swinging its power usage as drastically or completely as one would expect from propulsion onboard a ship. This is more about whether its possible to run the reactor at say 50% rated capacity for long periods of time, which AFAIK naval reactors can do, and to a certain extent so can some civilian plants, rod placement controls not just criticality but in the end heat generation, which translates to power output.

by merb 4y ago

StillBored 4y ago

Its not theory, the US navy doesn't run gas backup plants on the subs/carriers. Their reactors follow the load, and its not an insignificant variation, since propulsion is on demand and in the case of a sub, likely the largest consumer.

merb 4y ago
1. they use diesel generators as backup (they need to and it's a safety net) 2. they follow the load but they also pump out unnecessary energy (heat) into the ocean (you can't do that with normal reactors, BECAUSE you don't have infinite cooling water) 3. it's way smaller and the load is way smaller < 100 MW which of course makes load following way way more easier
- StillBored 4y ago
  Emergency use != load following. The fact that sometimes energy needs to be dumped != system cannot be throttled. And a huge number of nuke plants are already on the coast so, they have just as much water as a sub (not that this really matters). And I suspect size isn't really a factor here, its more about time variance, which I suspect is higher on a ship than its is on the grid. The grid wouldn't be swinging its power usage as drastically or completely as one would expect from propulsion onboard a ship. This is more about whether its possible to run the reactor at say 50% rated capacity for long periods of time, which AFAIK naval reactors can do, and to a certain extent so can some civilian plants, rod placement controls not just criticality but in the end heat generation, which translates to power output.