[TML] [Merchant Shipping] Some ideas I came up with to make merchant shipping more interesing

[matphasriscova]

Jerry W Barrington wrote:
> On 4/11/08 11:19 AM, "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> It is the fact that power plants of a nuclear variety are not terribly
>> adaptable in power output. A 40 MW plant puts out 40 MW. This is a big
>> problem in the grid because the demand can change by as much as 50% in the
>> course of a day. Nuclear can meet the load below that amount, but start up
>> times on current plants are on the order of weeks or months (not hours). But
>> we can't sink the excess power when we don't need it without huge battery or
>> capacitor farms. So nuclear is a poor solution for that reason alone to many
>> of our issues with the electrical grid. (Note, I think this could be worked
>> around, but it is not a small problem to solve by any means)
>>     
>
> It does *not* take weeks to physically start up a nuclear power plant.  That
> *is* a matter of hours (at most).  The weeks to months you cite are about
> economic and/or regulatory issues.
>
> And no, they *don't* have to run full-bore or off.  The more the control
> rods are opened, the more heat generated, and thus the more power.  Where di
> you get that idea.
>
>   
Assuming the reactor even _needs_ control rods in first place.  For
designs with negative temperature coefficients of reactivity (liquid
halide thorium reactor, pebble bed modular reactor to name two), you can
throttle power by varying how fast the coolant (liquid halide salt,
heavy water, liquid metal, noble gas, etc) is pumped.  Depending on
economics, the plant operator could also divert some of their plant's
output to something like desalination, process heat, etc when the
external load drops.

>> Also, the ports may *require* you to shutdown your plant if your posted
>> departure window is more than 48 hours from your arrival. They may be
>> uncomfortable with the possibilities of people trying the 'manual disengage'
>> or just running plants on freighters that may be 200 years and well past
>> their last annual maintenance date. Insurance underwriters or safety
>> authorities may demand you are shutdown when in dock.
>>     
>
> "Yup, I'll be leaving in 45 hours..."  <36 hours later>  "Hmm, we've decided
> to stick around another day... for some maintenance work."
>
>   
Wouldn't this lead to either "shutdown on dock" or "whatever" rather
quickly, as people game the system?

>> The ports may also *require* you to shutdown and use their power and air for
>> economic reasons. They have to keep their own big plants running and they
>> want places to sink the power. They also want the revenue from docked ships.
>> They probably charge you a single flat fee per berth or per foot and that
>> includes air and electricity and if you don't use the air or electricity,
>> you get no discount. So you're going to pay for it if you dock, so again,
>> why run the plant?
>>     
>
> Flat fee.  Hee hee, that's funny.  Then what would prevent me from using
> your flat-fee power to nearly fill the Jump capacitors?  After all, it's
> just electricity.  Besides ports, like other organizations, don't like flat
> fees.  They want to nickel and dime you to death.
>
>   
I would tend to agree - economics would tend to kill a flat fee
arrangement quickly.  Maybe the "flat" fee rapidly becoming a minimum?
>   
<snip>