RE: Shutting down fossil fuel electric plants
October 21, 2018 at 10:25 am
(This post was last modified: October 21, 2018 at 10:30 am by Anomalocaris.)
(October 21, 2018 at 10:04 am)Tizheruk Wrote:(October 21, 2018 at 8:08 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid. This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid. If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.But were going to have to do it or suffer the consequences
Nuclear does not address this need. Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line. So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load. At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.
Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either. In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.
Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.
At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.
It’s not an all or nothing thing.
(October 21, 2018 at 10:11 am)wyzas Wrote:(October 21, 2018 at 8:08 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Fossil fuel power plants fulfill a vital need of the electrical power grid, that is for the ability to rapidly adjust power output on command in response to changes in load on the electric grid. This is necessary for maintaining voltage and frequency stability of the lectric power grid. If voltage and frequency stability are not maintained, bad things will happen to many heavy duty electrical equipment in commercial and industrial applications.
Nuclear does not address this need. Nuclear power tend to be very stable and uneconomic to vary in output once the station is on-line. So they have very limited ability to vary their output on command to compensate for rapid changes in system load. At the moment nuclear is also far from price competitive purely from all-in cost of energy perspective.
Existing or perspective renewable generation technologies do not address this need either. In fact they make the need much greater because output from renewable technologies tend to fluncturate uncontrollably at the whim of wind and weather, thus increasing the need of the power grid for other resources to rapidly change in output on command to compensate.
Hydro-electric and pumped storage power plants can at times address some of this need, but they are subject to limited availability and other constraints.
At the moment, To completely replace fossil fuel fired power plants while still maintaining power grid stability requires sizeable breakthrough in other energy storage technologies.
More nuclear generated electricity will need to be in the mix somewhere. Never said it was the total answer.
The problem with nuclear is unless the capital cost is greatly reduced, it is not economic on all-in cost of energy basis. Particularly in the US. Right now Solar, wind and fossil are all cheaper than nuclear. This is discouraging the sort of investment needed to provide good prospect of improvement. Trump restricting nuclear exports to China is not helping with nuclear power research in the US.
