Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"

On Mar 31, 1:26 am, "Alex Terrell" <alexterr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't understand why they almost tripped the system on a windy day.
Surely the problems would be greatest on still days with no wind,
especially cold ones where demand for electricity remains high.

Because of the fluxuation in generation vs load. The solid state
equipment designed to smooth out the voltage problems when the
generation is going all over the place simply couldn't handle the amps
and voltage. When there is no wind, obviously, this not a problem.
Also, the fluxuation was whipping the whole grid centrifugally, and
the hydro units, which usually can be controlled VERY quickly by
opening and closing the penstock gates on each turbine couldn't handle
the Norwegian side the so the whole grid almost collapsed.

And...nuclear is also a good match with hydro, which is what the
French do, with little or no fossil buring at all. For that matter, w/
enough nuclear you could do wind too.

Everything is a good match with hydro, especially if you don't mind
turning a river on and off. (I remember kayaking on the Tully? in
Queensland. Kayaking and rafting needed to be coordinated with
electricity production.)

Actually, it's never the whole river, but a small proportion of a
river, that flows down a 'penstock', usually, and into the turbines.
The turbine/generators are mounted vertically (unlike all other types
of geneator) and the flat, wide turbines have 'windows' mounted around
the circumfrance of the turbine housing. These windows, or vanes,
close and open according to load.

Nuclear and wind are not easily responsive to demand. (Nuclear can be
turned down, but no money is saved, as the interest payments are not
dependent on output).

Nuclear can can up and down but yes, the agreements usually mean that
they have to run flat out 24/7.

If hydrogen were ever to become a useful fuel (a big if), then high
temperature reactors (e.g. PBMR) could switch to thermal production of
hydrogen when demand for electricity is low.- Hide quoted text -

Yes indeed. That's the future. Each oil refinery, for example, haveing
one PBMR or sharing one, would run all the chemical/hydrogen
production/petrochemical/process heating, AND producing some power in
co-gen mode. I can see having about 3,000 of these installed around
the US alone.

David

David

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Summation of Dr Olahs interview on Methanol
    ... if we were to generate 100% of our electricity from wind, ... something like 4/5 of the wind in the United States ... turbine producing 100 units netting your 67 units of hydrogen. ... And while there's 38 quad worth of coal on the grid, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Summation of Dr Olahs interview on Methanol
    ... if we were to generate 100% of our electricity from wind, ... something like 4/5 of the wind in the United States ... turbine producing 100 units netting your 67 units of hydrogen. ... the gasification plants would have to be constructed. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Summation of Dr Olahs interview on Methanol
    ... if we were to generate 100% of our electricity from wind, ... something like 4/5 of the wind in the United States ... Say you need 67 units of energy of transportation fuel and 200 ... turbine producing 100 units netting your 67 units of hydrogen. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: compressed air to store wind energy
    ... >> improvement of economics of wind power plants and other renewable ... > economics involved with the difference in electricity costs at peak ... > energy which is far cheaper to do this and allowing more output bang ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: replacement for severn tunnel?
    ... All forms of electricity generation need backup, in case production ... failure of the second largest coal fired plant in the UK ... Wind is easier to deal with in this respect. ...
    (uk.railway)