Stick this in your wind power pipe and smoke it.

Page 3 of 3  
Van Chocstraw wrote: ...

The only real comparison between a nuclear navy reactor and commercial generation reactor are the words "nuclear" and "reactor". The designs and operational constraints are worlds apart -- the naval reactor has far more operational flexibility owing to the unique demands of the application.
But, the point is valid, reactors can run at any power level.
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

And to clarify, that capability was _NOT_ owing to something specifically different in the reactor design itself but was almost entirely owing to a far more advanced integrated control system that incorporated the entire plant into its load management. At the time competitor designs used separate control subsystems that had only very loose cross-ties between the reactor primary controls and the turbine-generator controls, for example.
The point being there was nothing unique or limiting in the actual reactor itself that prevented load-follow control and maneuvering; it was all in how well the ICS was tuned and whether the control system was designed with sufficient capability to make even theoretically possible.
There were ramp rates established, of course, and they were slower than a specifically-designed load-following gas turbine by quite a lot, but the plants were designed for and could be operated as load-following units.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote: ...

There's virtually no difference in the secondary systems between a fossil generation unit of equivalent size and a nuclear unit as far as design.
The highest efficiency fossil units are what are termed "supercritical" boilers that run the boiler output above the critical point of water. These units can beat the best conventional boilers by a few percentage points on thermal efficiency owing to that higher initial temperature/pressure.
PWRs are roughly comparable to conventional fossil units but generally a few points lower thermal efficiency; BWRs are slightly lower yet. These are limitations on the outlet temperatures achievable by the designs and the designs of the steam generators.
BWRs are limited to steam temperatures right at saturation temperature of the reactor since they generate steam by letting the primary coolant boil (hence the name). PWRs, otoh, outlet superheated water at higher pressure (typically ~2250psia) to a secondary steam generator. This allows them to generate slightly higher temperature steam and, in the case of OTSG (once-through steam generators) actually generate as much as 40-50F of steam superheat. As does the higher temperature for the supercritical fossil boiler over the conventional, this higher temperature gives them a slight advantage over the BWR. The disadvantage as compared to the BWR is one of initial cost/size as they eliminate the secondary system. The advantage of the PWR is that once the system is built the extra efficiency is there for the life of the plant.
I'm not that bit into web sites -- I'd recommend the NRC and ANS sites for general level information on nuclear generation. You might look at some of the universities w/ nuclear engineering programs -- NC State and K-State (now part of the Mechanical Department) and see if they have any information--I've not looked at any recently. DOE has some information but I've not looked at other than the production data recently so don't know what level it is.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yucca mountain is in a active volcanoe region and should of never been selected as a storage area.
imagine a mt st helens eruption spreading nuclear waste over the entire planet
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nuclear cost per killowatt largely ignores the long term legacy fuel storage problem
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

Brought to you by the United States Department of Energy:
The last large-scale volcanic eruption in the Yucca Mountain area was 12 million years ago. Smaller eruptions from volcanic cones, lava seepage, and ash, stopped 80,000 years ago.
"Yucca Mountain is not in an area where continental plates meet, nor is it located near any volcanic hot spots. In fact, experts consider the Yucca Mountain region one of the least active volcanic fields in the western United States."
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0341.shtml
If the entire contents of the Yucca Mountain facility were converted to ash and "spread over the entire planet," this would expose humans to radioactivity less than that of a dental X-ray.
Besides, what's the worst that could happen, given Nevada is made up mostly of Democrats?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the mass of a bullet was spread out over your entire body it would feel like someone sneezed on you.
All statistics lie, and all analogies are bad.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

I dunno. Only 14% of statistics are lies.
I once had a girl tell me that dating her would be "like I died and went to heaven."
I'll admit it was more fun than throwing shells at the hermit crabs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote: ...

A search uncovered for "Scandinavia wind farm"
Wind Farm ↓ Location ↓    MW Hornberget Västerbotten. Sweden 10 Håcksta Hälsingland, Sweden 10      Total MW: 20.0
Wow! 10 whole MW of _installed_capacity_.
That typically is probably producing about 5-6 MW effective over the year.
I don't know where there's a European repository of data such as that at the US EIA site -- that may take some digging in order to find out what actual generation is. It ain't enough in total for a 1 million population even if it were capable of running at full capacity, though.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.