4 ms·
Seems like that would be fine for places where you have < 0.25GWt energy needs, and need a safe power source. Like remote installations/towns. Antarctic researc
by Grosvenor 2y ago
Seems like that would be fine for places where you have < 0.25GWt energy needs, and need a safe power source. Like remote installations/towns. Antarctic research stations, etc.
- cyberax 2y agoPebble bed reactors are indeed researched as a source for process heat (e.g. for steel or concrete production). But I really dislike that. If you just need 250MW of power, then just use electricity sourced from a regular PWR for heating. It'll be cheaper.
- Retric 2y agoThe maximum temperature from nuclear reactors is far below what you need for steel production because otherwise you’d melt the steel used to construct them. Waste heat can be useful for district heating systems because houses don’t need to reach high temperatures, but few designs give you access to even 300C and nothing currently hits 1,000+C.
- cyberax 2y agoSorry, you're right. Pebble bed reactors can provide helium at around 600C (reasonably up to 700C, but that's at the limits of material science).
- pfdietz 2y agoAnything at 300 C or below can be provided from renewable sources using industrial heat pumps. Heat is very storable, compared to electrical energy, so if the end user needs heat they could make the heat when renewable energy is cheap and store it, potentially for very long periods. Some district heating systems involve seasonal storage, essentially artificially charged geothermal. Nuclear thermal would be competing with otherwise curtailed renewable energy, which can be very cheap on the margin.