Can Nuclear and Wind Co-Exist?

June 26, 2017


One of the crunch points in utility generation right now, is that wind energy, and increasingly, solar energy, have become so cheap, that in the scheme of energy markets, they become the first choice for powering the massive grid system operators that distribute electricity in various regions of the US.
This is a problem for nuclear generators, in that, to be economic, or even safe, they need to run full-out, all the time.
But the variable power from wind and sun can easily flood the grid with more energy than is needed, and the resulting jam-up is a problem.  Natural gas turbines are a better fit for “load following” generation, with quick start-up and shut-down, they can be quickly ramped to fill in the gaps when wind turbines or solar farms change their output.
Now a new company has developed a nuclear design based on small modules, that can be switched on or off, to more efficiently follow the demand.

It is, so far, a paper design, that could not be deployed before 2026. No word here on possible impacts for proliferation, and waste management.
Also, there is the Trump effect. The new administration is so focused on backtracking into the fossil fueled past, that even the nuclear designs like this that “conservatives” say they favor, are not being supported.


As the wind gusts across the rural plains of Idaho rise and fall, a new type of nuclear plant could react in kind, generating more and less power in tandem with the wind farm.

That’s the vision laid out in a new paper from nuclear startup NuScale Power using computer models for a planned nuclear farm built near the Horse Butte Wind Project in Idaho.

The company, founded a decade ago, recently looked at how its modular nuclear reactors could follow clean energy, lowering and raising electricity output, if needed.

The surge of wind and solar in grids around the country is creating more variability in generation. As a result, power companies are starting to look at how traditional baseload energy sources like coal and nuclear can be more flexible, and lower their energy generation to avoid wasting power or overloading the grid.

In Germany, France, and Canada, some nuclear plants are already doing this, but it’s more out of necessity than design. Because NuScale’s reactors are much smaller than traditional nuclear reactors, the design can enable a power company to switch off individual modules, enabling load following (adjusting power output) in a more efficient way.

“We concluded that yes, we can load follow and we should be able to do it better and more responsibly than large nuclear plants,” said Daniel Ingersoll, NuScale Power’s director of research collaborations and lead author on the paper.

“Baseload plants are being forced into situations where they need to load-follow, and that’s not really operating those plants in their best form,” Ingersoll explained.

The findings are important because they provide a new way for nuclear energy to adapt and be more flexible as the grid mix changes. Some U.S. nuclear plants are getting shut down early, removing large sources of carbon-free baseload energy from the grid, and a handful of new nuclear plants are in danger of not getting built. It’s now cheaper to build natural gas and renewables in most states.

The U.S. has 90 nuclear reactors, which provide about a fifth of U.S. electricity needs. A recent study from MIT found that if all U.S. nuclear reactors at risk of operating uneconomically were replaced by new gas plants, U.S. emissions would jump by 4.9 percent.

Modular nuclear, like NuScale’s reactors, could offer a new role for the technology. “The whole issue of load-following comes down to economics,” said Ingersoll.

However, modular nuclear reactors aren’t yet available commercially. NuScale, the company closest to commercializing its tech, submitted designs to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission late last year. Regulators accepted the designs for review in March of this year.

If all goes well, NuScale’s first commercial plant could be operating in Idaho by 2026 for Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and operated by Energy Northwest.

It’s supposed to take the NRC three years to review the design papers, which include 12,000 pages of technical information and work from 800 NuScale staff.

NuScale has been funded by the Department of Energy and by engineering giant Fluor Corporation. The company’s technology is based on light water reactor designs and uses a convection process, eliminating the need for pumps (which can break down) to circulate the cooling liquid.

Each NuScale reactor is 65 feet tall and 9 feet in diameter, and can produce 50 megawatts of power. The modules are meant to be grouped together, with up to 12 monitored by a single control room.

The NuScale reactors can load-follow by turning off individual reactors. They can also react quickly to changes in the grid by bypassing the steam turbine. However, all of these operations are theoretical until the NuScale reactors are up and running and operating in tandem with a wind or solar farm.

NuScale isn’t the only company working on modular reactors. Others include Terrestrial Energy, Babcock & Wilcox, Gen4Energy and UPower Technologies. But the nuclear industry, and its U.S. regulatory body, aren’t very friendly to entrepreneurship or change.

Nuclear entrepreneurs have advocated for a new federal approval process to get novel nuclear reactor designs to market much more quickly. Large funding needs and long lead times to commercialization have also proved difficult for nuclear entrepreneurs, particularly those supported by venture capital.

The federal government is presenting new challenges. President Trump’s budget doesn’t renew a grant that NuScale is using to fund its first plant in Idaho. The budget also proposes cutting the Department of Energy’s nuclear office by 31 percent, halves a program that extends the life of existing nuclear reactors, and slashes several advanced nuclear tech efforts.



5 Responses to “Can Nuclear and Wind Co-Exist?”

  1. J4Zonian Says:

    “It is, so far, a paper design, that could not be deployed before 2026.”

    In my experience, not much electricity is generated by blueprints.

    Paper designs are great, but judging by the way nuke design and building has gone in the US, “2026” is likely to be about 2057. Only construction will stall and cost overruns will make it 2074. That–or whatever the date of its reality is, is extremely likely to be too late to save civilization.

    How much does electricity cost when it’s generated by blueprints, anyway? Is it cheaper than wind and solar? Is it going to be cheaper than wind and solar in 2057? 2074?

    Since we’re picking up the tab for insurance, I sure hope the smaller reactors have smaller payments to Allstate.

    • funslinger62 Says:

      Wind turbines and solar panels were once just paper designs. I don’t think we should bank on modular nuclear reactor designs to save the day, but it would be foolish to shut down any research aimed at making it practical.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        Someday maybe it won’t be impractical and dangerous and too expensive and produce unacceptable waste and won’t be targets for war and terrorism and won’t use or heat too much water and will be fully public so it won’t destroy equality and democracy (and liberty and fraternité). Just like fusion. Or no, um…wait…

        Well, what we know almost for sure is that it can’t be invented and built and mass-produced in the next 5-8 years so it’s useless for this crisis, which needs to be solved in that time or we face rapidly rising risk of irreversible effects of climate catastrophe that destroy civilization and make implementation of any solutions impossible. We already have the technologies to do what we need and they’re dropping in price so rapidly it’s unlikely any other technology will ever catch up. Especially nukes, which are highly subsidized, almost universally unwanted, and still are the most expensive energy there is.

  2. All energy sources will have to “coexist” but wind power in particular can’t coexist with natural scenery unless people lie to themselves about scenery’s aesthetic and historical importance.

    Today’s shallow, tech-obsessed environmentalism demands such lies. It’s mostly about sustaining comfortable urban lifestyles by ruining the quality of rural life and turning once-wild mountaintops into industrial beacons.

    Always keep in mind the sheer number of wind turbines planned for future goals, like the absurdly unrealistic “100% renewable energy” hype (guess what energy source is needed to build all that stuff). The machines that already spoil today’s countryside are only a tenth of what they’d like to install around the world.

    Offshore wind is nearly impossible to hide from view, so don’t buy that cure-all fable. Wind turbines are intrinsically big, ugly, noisy and lethal to anything that flies into them. Their blight just ADDS to older (coal, oil, etc.) blight that wind geeks always change the subject to.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      Seriously? You waited 4 1/2 months to post misinformation that’s 8 years out of date? And was wrong even then! Yowza, wudda moe-ron!

      Have you read anything about the new deep ocean “floating” wind turbines? Some are already operating. Read anything about the numerous studies–more all the time–that have looked at the issue any number of ways and verified that we can indeed power the world with 100% renewable energy?

      No matter of taste is intrinsically anything, especially when it’s ideologically or financially motivated. Unless it’s intrinsically evil, maybe, as it is when it’s lied about to serve evil intentions and is in thrall to fear and rage, and psychological splitting, projection and objectification…

      My heart soars every time I see a wind turbine, and the sight of a bunch of them gives me hope for humanity, which is hard to come by given the proto-fascist trolls that roam these sites and the streets and offices of DC. (not DC comics. But you know, now that I think about what you people are like…)
      I get the same feeling of hope and nobility when I see a powerful and elegant sailing vessel. Maybe you hate them, too, on ideological aka financial aka Wetiko grounds. They use little or no fossil fuels, after all. So…shouldn’t be allowed to exist, right?


      5 countries get most of their electricity from nukes, 4 of them barely over 50% and the 5th scaling back to 50 (and probably scaling back more after that). At least 61 countries get most of their electricity from clean safe renewable energy. 21 of them are at or near 100% RE, and some places–Scandinavia, Nicaragua…–are also showing the ways to a harmonized mix of 100% renewable primary energy.

      Just a few examples, of the many available:
      View at

      View at

      Also look up Mark Jacobson’s work and the Lappeenranta University series of regional and worldwide studies:
      100% Renewable Electricity Worldwide is Feasible and More Cost-Effective than the Existing System

      And just for perspecyive, here are the actions of conservative anti-renewables fanatics, suddenly so concerned for the wildlife they’ve been happily wiping out for generations. Shed a crocodile tear for the bunnies, and respect our desire for your silence, Res. (You don’t mind if I call you Res, right, Res? Or do you prefer Si, Si?)

      PS I tried to include some images here; don’t know what I’m doing so it may have gone horribly wrong.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: