On Sunday, 13 April 2014 23:32:07 UTC+2, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com  wrote:   
   > On Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:39:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >    
   > > Nukes have high fixed costs and low variable costs, so you want to run them   
   > > at full power 24x7. ...   
   >    
   > I don't understand.  All that means is that if you reduce output, you're not   
   > saving all that much money in fuel costs.  But by your statement, you then   
   > must spend money to absorb excess power.  So, it seems simpler just to put in   
   > the control rods and run at reduced power during slack times.   
      
   The problem is nuclear reactors are very slow to change their output.  The   
   rate at which demand changes is far more rapid than the rate at which power   
   station type nuclear reactors can respond.    
      
   > Peaking plants, such as turbines, have the advantage of quick start and   
   > relatively low cpaital cost, but are very expensive to run.   
      
   I assume you mean gas turbines here, as coal, nuclear, wind and hydro all use   
   turbines to generate power.  GT peakers (simple cycle) are only useful for   
   times of high demand, but combined cycles based on large gas turbines are   
   competitive for baseload    
   generation when the gas price is low, which it is now in the US due to shale   
   gas.   
      
   Robin   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)