On 17/01/2020 10:59, Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:


It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the cost
of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.




Oh agreed.

What do we do with electricity if no-one wants it at that moment?
Lightning displays? Build more interconnects ? -must be a
viability constraint(s}?

Wasn't there some blurb on here about the negative effects of
trying to "throttle back" nukes?


It is better to keep them running at full load (as long as that produces
some income) for two reasons. Firstly, it provides the best return on
investment, secondly it reduces thermal cycling. The fuel, core, boilers
and other structural elements have to be assessed for fatigue (as do the
turbines and other conventional plant, of course). I believe the French
plant are regularly load cycled.

But a guaranteed and reliable "energy storage" option, like hydrogen
generation, off peak heating or EV charging are really well suited to
nuclear generation. Of course aluminium smelting, as was done next door
to Wylfa in Anglesey, is also a form of energy storage.