Electronuclear flexibility (excluding subject wind)

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Electronuclear flexibility (excluding subject wind)




by sicetaitsimple » 27/12/17, 15:37

sicetaitsimple wrote:
I allow myself to copy some exchanges with Lilian07 a few weeks ago on the wire "electric cars the news wire, on 15/09. It starts with:

lilian07 wrote:
I confirm that a power plant does not start or stop in less than a week or even reduce or increase 25% more power.
...
a power plant does not drive at less than a week, I invite you to check also.

[I] [i]To which I answer:
[/ I]

That you believe (and that you confirm it) and that you invite me to check it is one thing, that it is exact is another ...



It just happens that there is an official site, that of RTE, on which you can find in real time (1 / 2h) the production of all groups of more than 100MW unitary power in France, they belong to EDF or to another producer. So, of course, we have to look for a little, because in general, nuclear groups are rather exploited near their nominal load, which is logical because their marginal cost (the variable cost) is the lowest of all non-renewable means of production and therefore they are called first. It is therefore necessary to look for (there are all the histories over several years) towards the beginnings and end of WE, the somewhat hollow days of summer, or the period Noel-New Year's Day.

So my turn to invite you to check, we are never more convinced than when we have even made the effort to search for the raw data rather than to stay on his certainties or hackers peddled on the Internet. [/ i]



Back to this not very old post, relating to the "flexibility" of French nuclear power. I was talking about the Christmas-New Year period.

That night to 4h30, the nuclear output was 44890MW. At 9h15, it was greater than 52000MW, and now greater than 53000.

Data available on the eco2mix website.
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Bardal » 27/12/17, 17:20

sicetaitsimple wrote:
sicetaitsimple wrote:
I allow myself to copy some exchanges with Lilian07 a few weeks ago on the wire "electric cars the news wire, on 15/09. It starts with:

lilian07 wrote:
I confirm that a power plant does not start or stop in less than a week or even reduce or increase 25% more power.
...
a power plant does not drive at less than a week, I invite you to check also.

[I] [i]To which I answer:
[/ I]

That you believe (and that you confirm it) and that you invite me to check it is one thing, that it is exact is another ...



It just happens that there is an official site, that of RTE, on which you can find in real time (1 / 2h) the production of all groups of more than 100MW unitary power in France, they belong to EDF or to another producer. So, of course, we have to look for a little, because in general, nuclear groups are rather exploited near their nominal load, which is logical because their marginal cost (the variable cost) is the lowest of all non-renewable means of production and therefore they are called first. It is therefore necessary to look for (there are all the histories over several years) towards the beginnings and end of WE, the somewhat hollow days of summer, or the period Noel-New Year's Day.

So my turn to invite you to check, we are never more convinced than when we have even made the effort to search for the raw data rather than to stay on his certainties or hackers peddled on the Internet. [/ i]



Back to this not very old post, relating to the "flexibility" of French nuclear power. I was talking about the Christmas-New Year period.

That night to 4h30, the nuclear output was 44890MW. At 9h15, it was greater than 52000MW, and now greater than 53000.

Data available on the eco2mix website.


See on this link https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/ ... e-29-2.pdf or on the "load monitoring" wiki ...
0 x
lilian07
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 15/11/15, 13:36
x 56

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by lilian07 » 29/12/17, 22:06

Sorry to insist, but the document cited in reference shows that a nuclear power plant is far from being "flexible" and that despite the new so-called flexible generations, it is impossible for them to follow a daily trend because its mode of operation is everything. simply several days away ... The price of what RTE considers flexibility is waste (we overheat for nothing "premature aging" we put the system out of its optimum functioning "maintenance in addition and especially less security.
Not really there I can only say that a plant is not made to respond quickly to demand and that is why in France we use more reactive systems (coal and dam) to avoid a financial disaster and ecological.
Nuclear yes for the predictable trend but not for its flexibility.
1 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Bardal » 30/12/17, 08:59

Unfortunately, the referenced document (which does not come from fanciful sources) says exactly the opposite of what you say, lilian ... Not only is flexible operation possible, but it is the usual mode of operation of power plants. , in France as in Germany.

No doubt there is a cost to this variability, as well as limits to be respected, but it is the case for all the means of production of energy. Finally, to count in France on the flexibility of coal-fired power plants would not lead us very far, besides the fact that this flexibility of coal also has its limits ...
1 x
lilian07
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 15/11/15, 13:36
x 56

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by lilian07 » 30/12/17, 10:07

In any energy production there is more or less flexibility, we go from the hydraulic dam a few seconds to the nuclear power plant a few days ... it is the complexity of implementation associated with the type of potential energy exploited that makes this energy usable more or less directly, the techniques making a flexible nuclear power station are financial and therefore ecological aberrations. Even the latest generation plants are slow systems that produce a lot of heat that must be evacuated at all costs ... I recognize, however, that progress is huge in this area but when we start playing with Gw heat production and that it is difficult to drive a chain reaction one reaches the limits of complexity where it would be more judicious to exploit other ways (which is another debate). Like the wind turbine that produces electromagnetic force directly but intermittently.
A nuclear power plant used in cogeneration (heat network) could certainly be more useful and more flexible during the peak load that is simply due to a higher demand for heat for the habitat.
But some have had to think before trying to make the plant flexible to counter the winter demand and may not it is not profitable to realize such heat networks that would multiply by 3 the efficiency of a plant that would operate are surplus heat for a few cents the Kwh.
1 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 30/12/17, 14:57

lilian07 wrote: despite the new generation said flexible, it is impossible for them to follow a daily trend because its mode of operation is simply several days ...



It's still bizarre this ability to deny factual data and accessible to everyone!

I was talking a little bit above the night of 27 / 12:

“That night around 4:30 am, nuclear output was 44890MW. At 9:15 am, it was over 52000MW, and now over 53000.”.

Do you want details by production group?

Blayais3; 860MW at midnight, about 250MW between 0h00 and 5h00, 950MW to 9h.
Blayais 4; 890MW to 2h, 250MW to approximately 7h00, 890MW to 9h00


I stop there, I started in alphabetical order and Blayais is the second in the list, after Bellevile who did not contribute.

But we can continue, Blayais 4 is the 6th slice on the list, there is 58.
0 x
lilian07
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 15/11/15, 13:36
x 56

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by lilian07 » 31/12/17, 17:34

Good short we will stop because everyone's vision.
Your ads results of electric Watts they do not mention the huge amount of energy baffled, in short a nuclear power plant varies its performance, hardly its production and it goes against what we must do with the energy (avoid waste)
At the time 1986 the Russians tried to vary the power of their old reactor (not flexible but very similar to the EDF hose), roughly reduce the power of the reactor to meet the consumption ... the result is everyone knows it is not yet resolved and costs Europe the largest project and the biggest pollution.

Remain on the sources that you gave, the nuclear power stations are issuers of energy with great flexibility. I grant you it's true and you're right the energy produced is consumption on time.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 31/12/17, 18:12

lilian07 wrote:Good short we will stop because everyone's vision.
Your ads results of electric Watts they do not mention the huge amount of energy baffled, in short a nuclear power plant varies its performance, hardly its production and it goes against what we must do with the energy (avoid waste)
At the time 1986 the Russians tried to vary the power of their old reactor (not flexible but very similar to the EDF hose), roughly reduce the power of the reactor to meet the consumption ... the result is everyone knows it is not yet resolved and costs Europe the largest project and the biggest pollution.

Remain on the sources that you gave, the nuclear power stations are issuers of energy with great flexibility. I grant you it's true and you're right the energy produced is consumption on time.


"Anyway, we're going to stop": you will allow me to notice that it was you who raised.
"each his vision": in this case it is more a matter of belief in your case on the precise subject of flexibility.
"varies its output" and "emitters of energy with great flexibility": we expect sources, rather than beliefs.

So we will stop actually, unless you raise!

It is perfectly right to be anti-nuclear, but also avoid false arguments.There are so many good!
1 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Bardal » 01/01/18, 13:26

Remundo wrote:how are the 2 nucleuses of service? Do you know how to read a graph or not? TEN data, calculate me the rate of change of the nuke on a day!

Otherwise you can pull 400 ch from an 1L engine and make nice engineering documents stamped by a multinational ... but you will have short term problems on your little toy.


Bof, nucleuses or not, that does not prevent to recognize a reality, even if it was thought different ... Here is the problem, not to be for or against a technique ...

On the other hand, the analogy with a one-liter engine from which 400ch is drawn is totally inappropriate. If an analogy is needed, it is that of an industrial engine intended for a permanent power of 400 ch: can it, yes or no, provide 150 or 231 or 308 ch when asked? It is the question of modulability, not that of overpowering.

Read the link I put down anyway; I'm sure you'll learn things ...
1 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Remundo » 01/01/18, 14:03

the question is not whether or not we can vary the thermal power of a reactor, everyone knows that it is possible.

on the other hand it poses problems of poisoning of the Xenon reactor and the Samarium, and that is why it is necessary to launch a reactor and exploit it to the maximum between +/- 10% of its cruising power.

And it is for this reason that the nuclear industry only partially responds to intermittency problems and does not do much better than renewables in the PV or wind type. The only really effective thing to manage intermittency is the great hydraulics + STEP. The flame heat is good too, but more expensive.
0 x
Image

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 263 guests