Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Monday, November 2, 2015

Nuclear Power Is The Most Unreliable of Electricity Sources And Requires 100% Rolling Reserve At All Times

I make this large claim based upon REALITY.

I make this claim BECAUSE the nuclear industry, armed with a $1.4 Billion dollar budget to send propaganda our way to try to keep their challenged industry alive, states that solar and wind is no good because it is too unreliable and requires too much backup.
stock here

Unplanned scrams (emergency full shutdown at a nuclear plant is called a "scrams") come at any time of day or night, and require instantaneous 100% backup.

Losing this type of large supply can drop the voltage and frequency on the grid, and since many types of power generation is "inductive" meaning that they can only follow a known good electricity wave form, if the waveform (voltage, frequency, and sinusoldial shape) is not good, they are programmed to drop off, i.e. shut down.

So if the grid drops out because of of losing the nuke plant supply (wide area blackout) ....and the nuke plant gensets don't start....then we are into nuclear meltdown mode. Again, like TMI, Three Mile Island, nicknamed "They Melted It" like ice cream in the sun.

So 100% backup required for the full capacity of each nuclear plant, and instantaneous.   Instantaneous means that it is required more quickly than even rolling reserve.    That requires a shared "diversity" of power sources throughout the grid.    And say you have 3 or 4 nuclear plants serving an area, you need to do more than just back up one nuclear plant, you must back up all the nuclear plants, since the factors that take down one nuclear can confound to take down all the nuclear. 

So lots of small generation (PV solar and wind is good!) to help feed the matrix of the grid, thus cushioning the impact of the nuclear plant tripping out instantaneously.

  • =================================
  • Paid troll at big story

    and how often do those scrams happen? Are they more or less common than say times of low wind?

    stock well: Well I would say from the structure of your question, your slant to promote nuclear and pot shot wind is clear.    Nevertheless you deserve a response. 

    Sadly, on average, nuclear plants have an emergency requiring a complete and immediate shutdown about ONCE PER YEAR per plant

    Some nuke plants are much more dangerous

    Which bring us to the concept of diversity.   Diversity simple says that not all sources are producing at a given time, and not all users are consuming at a given time, but when you have a wide variety of producers, say solar, wind, geothermal, sometime hydro, the average supply into the grid is much smoother than an individual supply.    That's a good thing for solar and wind, and the more the better. 

    I established my company career on the cutting edge of solar in Hawaii.     Seeing it rise from a "nice idea" to a powerful force that took so much power (literally and figuratively) away from the utility and the various governmental bodies that benefit legally and illegally from the utility, that large forced were brought to bear to kill "citizen owned solar" and replace it with monopoly owned solar.

    Even during this process, I was a skeptic on how well the "aging grid" would handle a lot of solar and wind.    I thought at 5% we would start to see problems and require some proactive solutions.

    Per Wikipedia link above
    According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, most studies critiquing solar and wind energy look only at individual generators and not at the system wide effects of solar and wind farms. Correlations between power swings drop substantially as more solar and wind farms are integrated (a process known as geographical smoothing) and a wider geographic area also enables a larger pool of energy efficiency efforts to abate intermittency.[40]

    Sovacool says that previously intermittent sources such as wind and solar can displace nuclear resources.[40]
    A very nice summary of the ranked dangers of nuclear plants is at the Cascadia Times
     Cascaadia Times Nuke Plants Ranked by DANGER

    Solar and wind have effectively no CO2 production, although I won't even agree with the Carbon Meme which even the Pope is not promoting, even though science does not support it.

    But the promoters of nuclear ----well just watch

    hilarious how the nukists keep on playing the CO2 card. CO2 is an indicator of other pollutants, but is not in fact a "pollutant", its helps plants grow better.
    But it boggles the mind how the producers of the most dangerous substances on earth (nuclear waste of which their is no solution) trot out a non pollutant as an excuse for their own existence, which is no longer economic.

    • You've never heard of LFTR have you? Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors? I recommend you research this kind of reactor and learn how it takes nuclear waste and destroy it.
      • Yes I have heard of LFTR
        1) No real working model, no track history of operation in commercial environment.
        2) Complete rubbish that "it destroys it". It takes some of the longer lived waste 10,000 to 10,000,000 years and turn SOME of it into waste that only goes away by half in 300 it takes 3000 years to pretty much completely go away.
        We need to solve some serious issues in the next decade and two, or the human race will be gone within 100 years if not sooner.

      The erratic nature of wind/solar has to be compensated “real-time” by fossil-fuel power stations operating in back-up mode, consuming more fuel than they would otherwise.
      Nuclear is our best carbon-free option.

      • The diversity of the grid is actually amazingly good, and smooth supply variances can be simplistically predicted by a few data points of wind and solar insolation of which the data transmission ability is already present at nearly no cost. Other supply sources can thus be strategically ramped up and down (load following) in a very energy efficient way.
        But not nuclear, one of the great weaknesses of nuclear during regular operation is that it is not at all good at load following.


    1. Im so sick of the theK40 dialogue and pseudo hormesis horseshit on enenews i get nauseous and almost puke when i see enenews mentioned anywhere stock. but i can plug my nose and go to your blog or majias or arclights or beyond nuclear and see something good. I will miss you immensely if you stop blogging. This story is a prime example of yur excellence. Seattle has mst hydropower in the country yet power bills are 400 dollars a month or more in small houses to payoff the three shit nuclear reactors they built in wa an subsidize the shitty leaky dangerous ge mark series fuku type reactor by richland wa. we have all bent over way too long. i have taken it to the streets somewhat. will miss ya stock.

      1. Ya I will still post here, when compelling.

        I was just at ENE, and saw the promotion of atom bomb created K40....sheesh its possible, in small areas right by the bombs, but not enough to fill the world, aiyaiyai!!!!

    2. I say good riddance. The rat farm at Enenews has imploded. Antinuclearism has bwcome a pariah. Normal working people are smarter than you think about nuclear issues. Thats why the antinuclear movement has failed in the US.

      1. How those financials working out for ya? Fitzpatrick is dead, long die Fitzpatrick.

    3. you are dying from it like the rest of us loose nuke. too bad for you. met a nuke engineer whos nuke enfineer wife died of pacreatic cancer at 48 last week. he says she was overexposed. he knows whats up. there are a hundred better sites than enenews. you are just so fried from heavy metal and radioisotope exposure you do not know which way is up. Whatva silly person. You will be squirmingbin a hospicebsoon with canncer or in an ambulance with a heart attack or getting a thyroidectomy. there will be no smirk on your face. just fear and regret.

      1. I know, what a silly arse nukist. And he spouts his non-sense on the day the death of Fitzpatrick nuclear plant is reached.

    4. This experiment proved that electricity and lightning are one in the same and that pointed rods conduct electricity better than balls, leading to Franklin's invention of the lightning rod. Beginning with this experiment, the principles of electricity gradually became understood.www.strø


    Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments