Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc
Ontario uses between 12-25 GW depending on the time of year and time of day.
If SK's power use is proportional per capita to Ontario's, that means SK uses about 1-2 GW, or 1000-2000 MW.
Seems to me that a CANDU 6, at 600 MW, is small enough? Unless I'm missing something
|
The problems with large units that have minimal ability to ramp up and down (i.e. most nuclear units) are:
- One need a large reserve that be activated quickly if a unit drops offline unexpectedly for reliability standards. If 600 MW drops off the grid, it's a big hit all at once for a smaller grid.
- Surplus power with no market at inopportune times. Ontario runs into this issue when it has a lot of wind/hydro excess and its large nuclear baseload. It has to either dump the power at very low (or negative) cost to nearby jurisdictions or just spill water around the dams.
- Minimal ability to follow load and ramp up production as needed.
- The logistical headaches of bringing in nuclear expertise to a utility that has no experience.
A 600 MW plant would be doable with retiring some of SaskPower's coal units. Absolute peak demand for SaskPower was just shy of 4,000 MW, so I'd wager that minimum demand (i.e. somewhat more than what you would build your baseload case for) would be in the 1,500-2,000 MW region. That
maybe means two units.
However, for building just one or two units, the case falls apart. That means be no economies of scale for training, development, and construction. France made its bet with nuclear power by standardizing and building dozens of units.
Effectively, a nuclear fleet would need a larger market to justify the seriously hideous capital costs. It would have to be a Saskatchewan/Alberta cooperative thing to displace a number of large gas/coal units. Given the way each province runs its electricity system, that seems a non-starter.
I'd be curious is Saskatchewan could cut a deal with Manitoba Hydro for hydro development.