To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by DennisP on Thursday December 22, 2016 @08:14AM (#13237029)

Modern nuclear plants are able to load follow [1]. The main reason we use them for base load is that nuclear's cost is mainly fixed, so it makes economic sense to run them at full capacity and follow demand with fossil, which has lower fixed costs and higher variable costs.

Molten salt reactors would be quite good at load following, because the reaction rate slows down so much as the fuel temperature increases. If you draw less power, you apply less cooling, so the fuel heats and the power output goes down. For example, the IMSR, likely the first MSR to be commercialized, is naturally a load-following reactor [2].

This doesn't mean it wouldn't make economic sense to, say, run nuclear for baseload, add solar for extra daytime demand, and use storage to smooth out the remaining demand mismatch. But that's a matter of economic optimization, not a technical limitation of nuclear.

[1] http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/14/responding-to-system-de...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR#Control

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) by smaddox on Sunday January 01, 2017 @05:14PM (#13297691)

IMSR looks like promising technology, but it's not yet proven. I'm hopeful Terrestrial Energy succeeds in commercializing it and competing with existing energy sources (without subsidies). Even if they do, it will not be a one size fits all solution, though.

In contrast, we know with near certitude that investment in basic infrastructure, such as a capable and robust power grid, will promote a plurality of solutions and pay for itself over time.

[ Parent | on HN ]