4 ms·
I think you’re missing the point how turbine-generator works. The rpm speed has to stay the same, meaning the rotor speed doesn’t change. As long as you don’t h
by leymed 2y ago
I think you’re missing the point how turbine-generator works. The rpm speed has to stay the same, meaning the rotor speed doesn’t change. As long as you don’t have closed circuit you’ll waste that mechanical energy. If you meant starting from stand still position, then you’re right it takes couple minutes to pick up the load.
With that said, turbines responding in couple minutes are more reliable as a baseline when you’re planning load flow of as big as country or wider area. The basic reason is that you have source of energy under your control such as nuclear, water, gas, coal. You cannot have solar, wind as your baseline, I don’t want sound dramatic, but it’s kind of suicidal to do that. Solar’s ramping is not a win when you consider greater scale.
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoReliable until it isn’t. The entire grid is a statistical system where we define the acceptable uptime. Renewables are as good as any other energy source bringing its own fuel, just need to take the variability into account. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
- leymed 2y agoYou’re correct that the system is statistical, and it’s planned accordingly. However, we cannot omit the fact that it’s the running turbine that responds faster to the unpredictable nature of the grid. The backbone of the grid, aka the baseline plants, are extremely responsive to unpredictable nature of the grid at a greater scale, with enough amount of safety margins to bring into service under unusual circumstances. I really don’t see, at least what we have in hand rn, that happening with solar or wind. Without strong baseline you’d experience supply demand imbalance, in engineering terms frequency decay, voltage collapse.
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoWhich means nuclear is the worst companion imaginable. Since nuclear power needs to run at 100% 24/7 to only make an enormous loss. Dispatchable nuclear power to complement renewables has never made sense.
- Herz 2y agoIt's amazing how every comment you make is the most boring ideological propaganda
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoStating facts is “ideological propaganda”? Work with the world, not against it.
- Herz 2y agoThese are lies you tell yourself and how you want people to see you. In a past discussion, you concluded by saying that those who support nuclear energy also support fossil fuels. These are your ideological premises; you don't care about creating a better world, nor are you interested in facts and problems. You only care about your vision of things and making it prevail over others. There's no need to know anything else to make any of your comments irrelevant. It's no coincidence that you are in every nuclear discussion, asserting how much you are against it.
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoGiven how the rightwing conservative politics have shifted from pure climate change denial to harping nuclear as the non-solution to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels the link is clear.
- ehvatum 2y agoNuclear power derives its energy from the binding energy of ultra-heavy atomic nuclei, not fossil fuels. This energy can then be used to power electric cars, avoiding fossil fuel consumption. Furthermore, unlike wind and solar energy, nuclear power generation is not tied to the vagaries of weather, meaning that it doesn’t require burning millions of cubic meters of natural gas every overcast, calm day. For this reason, Russia historically was the largest single benefactor of Germany’s green euphoria: it prolongs fossil fuel reliance. So often, emotional thinking leads to conclusions that are opposed to reality. You really have to watch out for it, if you want good results.