Replies

Nuke plants are better used as “base load” generators — but then, so are coal plants.

That’s a far cry from the author’s assertion that they are “designed to run flat out, 24/7”.

See also post 28.

If the fuel cladding is toughened up BWRs can ramp up and down fairly quickly using recirculation flow down to about 60% power. PWRs can follow steam demand to a point then add / subtract boron from the main coolant but commercial PWRs are not my area of expertise.

Both plants can dump steam using the bypass valves but they probably wouldn't have to. Proper mix of sources on the grid is key. We could go to 60-70% nuke without any grid stability problems IMHO. Don't forget we need to convert coal to oil and get oil from shale and tar sands not to generate power, but for my cars. And we need to drill and refine. Oh yeah we have to make hydrogen too. And all of those electric cars will need charging by night and day. I think there will be plenty of demand.

I am in nuclear energy even so I am convinced we need to use coal also. Not all eggs in one basket. And we have a LOT of coal. One issue people tend to overlook is staffing for nukes. They are pretty complicated beasts and most of us old timers are getting well...old.

One other thing, with fast breeders we can make more fuel than we consume in the reactors. All that stands in our way is the democrat and rino members of congress.

If I was President I would declare a national emergency and get to work. If congress objects I'd treat them like Lincoln treated the copper heads. Flame away FR, this nation is in a battle for its very life, time to take care of business.