2 ms·
SMRs are 'fine' for smaller grids. For example, the province of New Brunswick has a CANDU 6 reactor, which is 1x660MW of capacity: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w
by throw0101c 2y ago
SMRs are 'fine' for smaller grids. For example, the province of New Brunswick has a CANDU 6 reactor, which is 1x660MW of capacity:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Lepreau_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Lepreau_Nuclear_Generati...
CANDUs are pretty flexible in that there's a lot of maintenance (including refuelling) that can be done while it is running, but there's still some stuff that needs to be done when the system is powered down, which means taking down a large source of power for the grid.
If there were 2-3x300MW reactors, when there could be rotating maintenance without much impact to the grid.
- chickenbig 2y agoCANDU are a great design; the calandria is a nice adaptation to the capabilities of Canadian maufacturing, and it is impressive to see the lines of reactors at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington. It is also a widely exported design, with China constructing reactors on a 4 year timeline. Granted a single large reactor would dominate the grid, but I presume there is grid connectivity to adjacent provinces. An alternative would be a large energy user (aluminium, heavy water production) to soak up the excess power and turn down when one unit comes offline.
- pfdietz 2y agoSome people present Alaska as a good place for SMRs. But the largest grid there, the Railbelt Grid, has an average power flow of just 600 MW. A 300 MW reactor would be too large to integrate into that system.