Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(10,990 posts)
25. We load-followed with large coal (700+ MW) units just fine
Sun May 12, 2019, 04:24 PM
May 2019

Last edited Sun May 12, 2019, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

No reason that I heard of that we couldn't with our nukes either, just that we didn't need to or want to, because the minimum total system demand exceeded the total output of our nukes, and they were the cheapest fuel cost resources, so they always ran at full load other than when they were down for refueling or other maintenance.

speaking of the NSP system of Minnesota (now part of Xcel) in 1970s - 1980s. The nukes were Prairie Island and Monticello. I was in system operations for many years providing operational engineering support that included determining what units to run and how much (unit commitment, economic dispatch ... )

EDITED TO ADD 841p ET:

France does a lot of load following with their nuclear -- at one time (in 2004) 88% of their electricity was produced by nuclear.

Without knowing more about details especially waste management, I'd offer this: yonder May 2019 #1
The carbon dioxide molecules from natural gas power plants are some really tiny shards... hunter May 2019 #3
Which is easier to clean up.... defacto7 May 2019 #4
Solar panel 'waist' in 25 years? Finishline42 May 2019 #7
I agree, our choices are limited and will get only worse because of us humans yonder May 2019 #9
Breakthrough in PV module recycling OKIsItJustMe May 2019 #17
Solar PV Recycling Identified as Untapped Business Opportunity OKIsItJustMe May 2019 #18
Small, distributed thorium reactors Ghost Dog May 2019 #2
This ! defacto7 May 2019 #5
The uranium/plutonium cycle is infinitely sustainable. The thorium cycle is not. NNadir May 2019 #6
Thanks for that, NNadir. I have been doing some (light) reading in this area Ghost Dog May 2019 #8
My own "peak oil" proclivities were optimistic, not pessimistic. hunter May 2019 #12
What? Eko May 2019 #19
It _is_ feasible with smaller-scale, safer, cleaner distributed Ghost Dog May 2019 #20
Why Eko May 2019 #21
They are very expensive and take a long time to build and eventually decomission. Ghost Dog May 2019 #22
They don't adjust quickly to fluctuating energy demand NickB79 May 2019 #24
We load-followed with large coal (700+ MW) units just fine progree May 2019 #25
Reprocessing technology... NNadir May 2019 #14
Maybe the best thing to do is to build support for both. StevieM May 2019 #11
I agree. I'm not against thorium's use. NNadir May 2019 #15
There is no way to guarantee the long term safety of nuclear delisen May 2019 #27
There is only one answer to our future energy supply conundrum... NeoGreen May 2019 #10
Yes. Using less energy; producing less junk; consuming fewer resources; polluting little. Ghost Dog May 2019 #13
Post removed Post removed May 2019 #16
Once the global population starts to die off by the billions NickB79 May 2019 #23
Nuclear power is dangerous Crazyleftie May 2019 #26
Fossil fuels ARE destroying the planet. hunter May 2019 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»This Company Says The Fut...»Reply #25