"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the
entire grid once.

You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler

And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch
requirements.




We were discussing high capacity , do keep up.

You really dont understand the subject do you?

Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the
turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping

Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers.
hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or
having some gas.
Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen
are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped
storage


Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover
extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to
provide months of storage.

Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well do
something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up.

Neither do the french and their system works fine.


The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK.

That may well be true, but given
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations
it doesnt appear that they have any more pumped
storage than the UK and use the different fuel rod
approach for handling the varying load on their
system instead of pumped storage.

But that doesnt actually list the MWh of their's.

They have significantly more hydro power.

Thats a separate issue to how best to handle the
varying load on nukes.

The French also use fossil fuels for heating.

Another separate issue to varying load on the nukes.