We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

The Alternative Green Energy Thread

Options
12526283031159

Comments

  • JKenH
    JKenH Posts: 5,134 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 21 July 2020 at 4:21AM
    During recent discussions on balancing the grid it was mentioned that nuclear is not great at load following. I came across this article which suggests in fact that nuclear can ramp quicker than CCGT. 



    Due to the French energy mix specifics, the Électricité de France (EDF) nuclear fleet was designed to provide load following and full ancillary services (primary and secondary reserves), mainly due to a large demand consumption pattern with high seasonal variations.” But as the country’s nuclear program has matured and its energy mix shifted, France has also embarked on improved programs to accomplish rapid load following—from 100% rated thermal power (RTP) to 30% RTP—frequency control (±7% RTP), and rapid (up to 5% RTP/minute) return to full power, all with minimal reactor trips while maintaining stable power at various power levels. That required upgrades to nuclear plants with additional plant modifications.

    Load-following capabilities were also a “built-in” feature for new nuclear plants constructed in Germany as early as the 1970s, and German plant designs—including pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)—considered and incorporated features to compensate for load changes over a large power range and a fast gradient (up to 5% rated electrical output [REO]/min, or, for some designs, 10% REO/min).


    Edit: I have posted this to correct any misconceptions about the technical capability of nuclear for load following NOT to reignite the debate on whether nuclear is preferable to RE.

    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)
  • ABrass
    ABrass Posts: 1,005 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    JKenH said:
    During recent discussions on balancing the grid it was mentioned that nuclear is not great at load following. I came across this article which suggests in fact that nuclear can ramp quicker than CCGT. 



    Due to the French energy mix specifics, the Électricité de France (EDF) nuclear fleet was designed to provide load following and full ancillary services (primary and secondary reserves), mainly due to a large demand consumption pattern with high seasonal variations.” But as the country’s nuclear program has matured and its energy mix shifted, France has also embarked on improved programs to accomplish rapid load following—from 100% rated thermal power (RTP) to 30% RTP—frequency control (±7% RTP), and rapid (up to 5% RTP/minute) return to full power, all with minimal reactor trips while maintaining stable power at various power levels. That required upgrades to nuclear plants with additional plant modifications.

    Load-following capabilities were also a “built-in” feature for new nuclear plants constructed in Germany as early as the 1970s, and German plant designs—including pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)—considered and incorporated features to compensate for load changes over a large power range and a fast gradient (up to 5% rated electrical output [REO]/min, or, for some designs, 10% REO/min).


    Edit: I have posted this to correct any misconceptions about the technical capability of nuclear for load following NOT to reignite the debate on whether nuclear is preferable to RE.

    That is interesting, the article says some of them manage the ramp down by maintaining the reactor at full power but dump some of the steam rather than running it through a turbine.

    Which means if you ran the nuclear plants at s deliberately lower CF you'd be able to ramp up and down. It'd still cost as much to run the plants as going full tilt though. It's an interesting technical capability but it seems like it won't be economical given the high cost of nuclear electricity.
    8kW (4kW WNW, 4kW SSE) 6kW inverter. 6.5kWh battery.
  • Pile_o_stone
    Pile_o_stone Posts: 192 Forumite
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 21 July 2020 at 8:51AM
    ABrass said:
    JKenH said:
    During recent discussions on balancing the grid it was mentioned that nuclear is not great at load following. I came across this article which suggests in fact that nuclear can ramp quicker than CCGT. 



    Due to the French energy mix specifics, the Électricité de France (EDF) nuclear fleet was designed to provide load following and full ancillary services (primary and secondary reserves), mainly due to a large demand consumption pattern with high seasonal variations.” But as the country’s nuclear program has matured and its energy mix shifted, France has also embarked on improved programs to accomplish rapid load following—from 100% rated thermal power (RTP) to 30% RTP—frequency control (±7% RTP), and rapid (up to 5% RTP/minute) return to full power, all with minimal reactor trips while maintaining stable power at various power levels. That required upgrades to nuclear plants with additional plant modifications.

    Load-following capabilities were also a “built-in” feature for new nuclear plants constructed in Germany as early as the 1970s, and German plant designs—including pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)—considered and incorporated features to compensate for load changes over a large power range and a fast gradient (up to 5% rated electrical output [REO]/min, or, for some designs, 10% REO/min).


    Edit: I have posted this to correct any misconceptions about the technical capability of nuclear for load following NOT to reignite the debate on whether nuclear is preferable to RE.

    That is interesting, the article says some of them manage the ramp down by maintaining the reactor at full power but dump some of the steam rather than running it through a turbine.

    Which means if you ran the nuclear plants at s deliberately lower CF you'd be able to ramp up and down. It'd still cost as much to run the plants as going full tilt though. It's an interesting technical capability but it seems like it won't be economical given the high cost of nuclear electricity.
    It makes you wonder if they are making fair comparisons ( I'm sure they would - a nuclear energy tech platform is completely impartial). Are they looking at a maxed out nuclear plant vs a switched off gas plant, then looking at how effectively they can ramp up?

    With that sort of science, my Nissan Juke is faster than a Lamborghini on a drag strip, but only if if I'm sat at the start line revving my engine ready for the lights to change while the lambo driver is still in the track cafe drinking his cup of tea. :D
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 350L thermal store.
    100% composted food waste
    Mini orchard planted and vegetable allotment created.
  • JKenH
    JKenH Posts: 5,134 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 21 July 2020 at 11:23AM
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)
  • ABrass
    ABrass Posts: 1,005 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    ABrass said:
    JKenH said:
    During recent discussions on balancing the grid it was mentioned that nuclear is not great at load following. I came across this article which suggests in fact that nuclear can ramp quicker than CCGT. 



    Due to the French energy mix specifics, the Électricité de France (EDF) nuclear fleet was designed to provide load following and full ancillary services (primary and secondary reserves), mainly due to a large demand consumption pattern with high seasonal variations.” But as the country’s nuclear program has matured and its energy mix shifted, France has also embarked on improved programs to accomplish rapid load following—from 100% rated thermal power (RTP) to 30% RTP—frequency control (±7% RTP), and rapid (up to 5% RTP/minute) return to full power, all with minimal reactor trips while maintaining stable power at various power levels. That required upgrades to nuclear plants with additional plant modifications.

    Load-following capabilities were also a “built-in” feature for new nuclear plants constructed in Germany as early as the 1970s, and German plant designs—including pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)—considered and incorporated features to compensate for load changes over a large power range and a fast gradient (up to 5% rated electrical output [REO]/min, or, for some designs, 10% REO/min).


    Edit: I have posted this to correct any misconceptions about the technical capability of nuclear for load following NOT to reignite the debate on whether nuclear is preferable to RE.

    That is interesting, the article says some of them manage the ramp down by maintaining the reactor at full power but dump some of the steam rather than running it through a turbine.

    Which means if you ran the nuclear plants at s deliberately lower CF you'd be able to ramp up and down. It'd still cost as much to run the plants as going full tilt though. It's an interesting technical capability but it seems like it won't be economical given the high cost of nuclear electricity.
    It makes you wonder if they are making fair comparisons ( I'm sure they would - a nuclear energy tech platform is completely impartial). Are they looking at a maxed out nuclear plant vs a switched off gas plant, then looking at how effectively they can ramp up?

    With that sort of science, my Nissan Juke is faster than a Lamborghini on a drag strip, but only if if I'm sat at the start line revving my engine ready for the lights to change while the lambo driver is still in the track cafe drinking his cup of tea. :D
    I believe it was looking more at ramping down than up. But the article is a summary of a bigger piece so the technical nuances may be getting lost.

    Apparently a large fraction of the French nuclear fleet can ramp up and down for load following. That they don't seem to do it means that even if it's possible it may not be worth doing.
    8kW (4kW WNW, 4kW SSE) 6kW inverter. 6.5kWh battery.
  • JKenH
    JKenH Posts: 5,134 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ABrass said:
    ABrass said:
    JKenH said:
    During recent discussions on balancing the grid it was mentioned that nuclear is not great at load following. I came across this article which suggests in fact that nuclear can ramp quicker than CCGT. 



    Due to the French energy mix specifics, the Électricité de France (EDF) nuclear fleet was designed to provide load following and full ancillary services (primary and secondary reserves), mainly due to a large demand consumption pattern with high seasonal variations.” But as the country’s nuclear program has matured and its energy mix shifted, France has also embarked on improved programs to accomplish rapid load following—from 100% rated thermal power (RTP) to 30% RTP—frequency control (±7% RTP), and rapid (up to 5% RTP/minute) return to full power, all with minimal reactor trips while maintaining stable power at various power levels. That required upgrades to nuclear plants with additional plant modifications.

    Load-following capabilities were also a “built-in” feature for new nuclear plants constructed in Germany as early as the 1970s, and German plant designs—including pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)—considered and incorporated features to compensate for load changes over a large power range and a fast gradient (up to 5% rated electrical output [REO]/min, or, for some designs, 10% REO/min).


    Edit: I have posted this to correct any misconceptions about the technical capability of nuclear for load following NOT to reignite the debate on whether nuclear is preferable to RE.

    That is interesting, the article says some of them manage the ramp down by maintaining the reactor at full power but dump some of the steam rather than running it through a turbine.

    Which means if you ran the nuclear plants at s deliberately lower CF you'd be able to ramp up and down. It'd still cost as much to run the plants as going full tilt though. It's an interesting technical capability but it seems like it won't be economical given the high cost of nuclear electricity.
    It makes you wonder if they are making fair comparisons ( I'm sure they would - a nuclear energy tech platform is completely impartial). Are they looking at a maxed out nuclear plant vs a switched off gas plant, then looking at how effectively they can ramp up?

    With that sort of science, my Nissan Juke is faster than a Lamborghini on a drag strip, but only if if I'm sat at the start line revving my engine ready for the lights to change while the lambo driver is still in the track cafe drinking his cup of tea. :D
    I believe it was looking more at ramping down than up. But the article is a summary of a bigger piece so the technical nuances may be getting lost.

    Apparently a large fraction of the French nuclear fleet can ramp up and down for load following. That they don't seem to do it means that even if it's possible it may not be worth doing.
    A bit more detail from the full article. It does appear that the decision whether to ramp NPPs is based on economics as you suggest. The article suggests in France it is common but there are no figures provided to show what proportion of the time NPPs are run at less than full capacity. 

    In France comparable power gradient values of 5 %PN/min for the range of 30-100% [2] and +/- 2.5% for short-term frequency modulation (few seconds) are given [8]. Due to the high dependency of the French electricity supply on nuclear power (about 75%) this is a necessity, as NPPs have to be suited for overnight and weekend load following and for complete interruptions for short periods of time (hours to days) [8].
    In addition to Germany and France, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Hungary are also practicing either load following, power modulation or grid frequency stabilisation at their NPPs to different extents. The need for NPPs to load follow depends on the national or regional energy mix: in Scandinavian countries, for example, where there is a large share of hydro, or in countries where there is still a large share of fossil-fired generation, balancing intermittent renewable output can usually be performed more economically by modulating the non-nuclear components of the mix. [My bold]


    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)
  • ABrass
    ABrass Posts: 1,005 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    JKenH said:
    ABrass said:
    ABrass said:
    JKenH said:
    During recent discussions on balancing the grid it was mentioned that nuclear is not great at load following. I came across this article which suggests in fact that nuclear can ramp quicker than CCGT. 



    Due to the French energy mix specifics, the Électricité de France (EDF) nuclear fleet was designed to provide load following and full ancillary services (primary and secondary reserves), mainly due to a large demand consumption pattern with high seasonal variations.” But as the country’s nuclear program has matured and its energy mix shifted, France has also embarked on improved programs to accomplish rapid load following—from 100% rated thermal power (RTP) to 30% RTP—frequency control (±7% RTP), and rapid (up to 5% RTP/minute) return to full power, all with minimal reactor trips while maintaining stable power at various power levels. That required upgrades to nuclear plants with additional plant modifications.

    Load-following capabilities were also a “built-in” feature for new nuclear plants constructed in Germany as early as the 1970s, and German plant designs—including pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)—considered and incorporated features to compensate for load changes over a large power range and a fast gradient (up to 5% rated electrical output [REO]/min, or, for some designs, 10% REO/min).


    Edit: I have posted this to correct any misconceptions about the technical capability of nuclear for load following NOT to reignite the debate on whether nuclear is preferable to RE.

    That is interesting, the article says some of them manage the ramp down by maintaining the reactor at full power but dump some of the steam rather than running it through a turbine.

    Which means if you ran the nuclear plants at s deliberately lower CF you'd be able to ramp up and down. It'd still cost as much to run the plants as going full tilt though. It's an interesting technical capability but it seems like it won't be economical given the high cost of nuclear electricity.
    It makes you wonder if they are making fair comparisons ( I'm sure they would - a nuclear energy tech platform is completely impartial). Are they looking at a maxed out nuclear plant vs a switched off gas plant, then looking at how effectively they can ramp up?

    With that sort of science, my Nissan Juke is faster than a Lamborghini on a drag strip, but only if if I'm sat at the start line revving my engine ready for the lights to change while the lambo driver is still in the track cafe drinking his cup of tea. :D
    I believe it was looking more at ramping down than up. But the article is a summary of a bigger piece so the technical nuances may be getting lost.

    Apparently a large fraction of the French nuclear fleet can ramp up and down for load following. That they don't seem to do it means that even if it's possible it may not be worth doing.
    A bit more detail from the full article. It does appear that the decision whether to ramp NPPs is based on economics as you suggest. The article suggests in France it is common but there are no figures provided to show what proportion of the time NPPs are run at less than full capacity. 

    In France comparable power gradient values of 5 %PN/min for the range of 30-100% [2] and +/- 2.5% for short-term frequency modulation (few seconds) are given [8]. Due to the high dependency of the French electricity supply on nuclear power (about 75%) this is a necessity, as NPPs have to be suited for overnight and weekend load following and for complete interruptions for short periods of time (hours to days) [8].
    In addition to Germany and France, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Hungary are also practicing either load following, power modulation or grid frequency stabilisation at their NPPs to different extents. The need for NPPs to load follow depends on the national or regional energy mix: in Scandinavian countries, for example, where there is a large share of hydro, or in countries where there is still a large share of fossil-fired generation, balancing intermittent renewable output can usually be performed more economically by modulating the non-nuclear components of the mix. [My bold]


    Frequency regulation is an issue now but won't be for that much longer. The Horndale battery in Auz has demonstrated that very firmly. Any battery that's on the grid, for load shifting solar for example, can manage frequency better and cheaper than fossil fuel can, let alone nukes.
    8kW (4kW WNW, 4kW SSE) 6kW inverter. 6.5kWh battery.
  • Pile_o_stone
    Pile_o_stone Posts: 192 Forumite
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    It's all moot anyway, the battle has been won and nukes will be consigned to the history books. Incidentally, I noticed a nuclear fusion headline today that stated "Fusion only 10 years away". I actually laughed out loud.
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 350L thermal store.
    100% composted food waste
    Mini orchard planted and vegetable allotment created.
  • EricMears
    EricMears Posts: 3,308 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 21 July 2020 at 8:41PM
    Pile_o_stone said:  I noticed a nuclear fusion headline today that stated "Fusion only 10 years away". I actually laughed out loud.
    ISTR seeing similar articles 60 years ago ! 
    Along with others suggesting that 'in the future' (i.e. about now  :D ) electricity would become too cheap to meter.
    NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq5
  • EricMears said:
    Pile_o_stone said:  I noticed a nuclear fusion headline today that stated "Fusion only 10 years away". I actually laughed out loud.
    ISTR seeing similar articles 60 years ago ! 
    Along with others suggesting that 'in the future' (i.e. about now  :D ) electricity would become too cheap to meter.
    I love how our hovercars are powered by this free electricity :D
    5.18 kWp PV systems (3.68 E/W & 1.5 E).
    Solar iBoost+ to two immersion heaters on 350L thermal store.
    100% composted food waste
    Mini orchard planted and vegetable allotment created.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.