• Tvkan@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    There are ways of dealing with this, but they’re far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.

    Spending more than 40 billion pounds over one and a half decades to build two energy storage flywheels that also produces radioactive waste is probably the most absurd undertaking conceivable to man.

    When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack.

    But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yes I was referring to rotating stabilisers, however they have their own risks. Different manufacturers have different solutions, but basically the concern is that if they fall off their bearings you could have a massive and fast spinning disk rolling across the countryside demolishing everything in its path. This isn’t a concern on large cruise ships or aircraft carriers, where the technology was initially developed.

      Also, you have more than one turbine per reactor.

      But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.

      Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Why are you being argumentative?