Load following with nuclear energy - from http://www.claverton-energy.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php

[dave andrews]

Submitted on 2011/12/18 at 12:14 am

Thanks to Rod for a very sensible comment – I would just comment that nuclear submarines are subject to very different regulatory arrangements from commercial nuclear power plants, so they can perhaps do things that would not be permitted on dry land!

 A comment from David Ward....on the claverton site...you can sign up to receive / and make any comments....

http://www.claverton-energy.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=3945&action=edit

An Update:

John Morris’s presentation (Reference 2 above) is now available from http://www.nuclearinst-cass.com/documents.htm

French nuclear units have actually been load following and providing frequency control since the early 1980′s, when their percentage of nuclear already exceeded 50%. A good paper summarising their early experience is “The adaptation of nuclear reactors to the needs of networks” , by G B Giesdon, C Martin, & C Miossec, (In French),in Revue de l’Energie No 372, March 1985, [I think not available via internet].

There is now a public paper on the German’s use of nuclear to balance wind variations – “Load cycling capabilities of German Nuclear Power Plants”, by Holger Ludwig, Tatiana Salnikova, Andrew Stockman and Ulrich Waas, in International Journal for Nuclear Power, Volume 55 (2010), Issue 8/9 August/September [available from http://www.vgb.org/en/load_cycling_capabilities_npp.html

Regards

David Ward

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

[dave andrews]

The blindingly obvious points is that you don;t want to have wind and nuclear.  One or the other. Or maybe a lot of one and a little of the either - either way.  But not lots of both.

On 18 December 2011 15:31, Dave Elliott <d.a.e...@open.ac.uk> wrote:

Sorry to spoil the part but I hear that DECC have indicated at meetings on the Generic Design Assessment that they have no intention of licencing the new UK

nuclear plants for use under ‘variable load’, even though that is claimed as possible for the EPR & AP1000. So no wind balancing...

Dave E

On 18 Dec 2011, at 14:58, David Hirst wrote:

Thanks very for these. They give useful and authoritative-looking information about the flexibility of the nuclear plant.

They do need some analysis, as the rate of change figures and the scope for short term flexibility are less than would be ideal, so they will have an impact on the other plant needed to cope with the real world. They are presented in ways that make it all look better than I suspect it really is.

And there is the price. I do not know to what extent the cost assessment figures of government etc. assume baseload – ie maximum output when the plant is working. If one has to have (say) 20% reduction for (say) 30% of most days then that increases the cost per kWh unit by about 6%.

There is not a lot of scope for trials and tests. Indeed, it was an attempt to test variable output that triggered Chernobyl.

Cheers

David

David Hirst

!-!?!-Hirst Solutions Limited

Mobile:  +44 7831 405443

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.