this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
9 points (100.0% liked)

Electrical and Computer Engineering

1984 readers
2 users here now

Electrical and computer engineering (ECE) community, for professionals and learners. Discuss ECE related topics here, for instance digital design, signal processing, circuit analysis, electromagnetics, microelectronics, power electronics, RF electronics, etc.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi! So a question just popped into my mind and I need to know. Ok, so let's say we have a hypothetical power source that's some sort of self-sustaining reaction or process. And let's just say that once we start it, there's no way of shutting/slowing it down.

The largest capacity power plant on the globe is the Three Gorges Dam with an output of 22,500 MW. Let's say our hypothetical power source also puts out 22,500 MW. Let's also say that our hypothetical power source also has the potential to go into a sort of "meltdown," and when in this condition, our hypothetical power source has the potential to double it's electrical production to 45,000 MW for a brief time.

So my question is this: If a worst case scenario occurred and the power plant that contained our hypothetical power source was disconnected from the grid, what would the best way to "burn off" all of that electricity that now had no where to go? Thank you for humoring me :)

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

If the circuit is cut, you have zero load so you have zero current, but the electrical potential is still at 22kMV if the generators are still turning. (Voltage is irrelevant the way I am explaining this though.)

I know nothing about dams or those kinds of power generation systems or what kind of safety systems are in place. However, it shouldn't matter much if we are talking about 20kMV or 20mV as the concepts are scalable.

The chaos that happens if you suddenly cut load is likely going to be mechanical, not electrical. The load of the power grid magnetically "pushes" back against the force of the generator turning. The stronger the load, the harder it is for the generator to physically turn.

Let's imagine for a second that there are no safety systems, ways to divert water flow or any kind of brakes for the generator.

If the load is suddenly cut, the magnetic resistance pushing back on the generator is also immediately cut, effectively making the generator free spinning with no resistance. The generator would likely tear itself apart spinning out of control. (We are likely talking about thousands of pounds of steel and copper that is already spinning and has a fuck ton of kinetic energy.)

I believe large generators actually use electromagnets instead of large solid magnets like smaller generators would use. Unfortunately, I can't speculate how the electromagnets would behave in a situation where the generator was free-spinning. (I can take a shitty guess and say the coils might fail catastrophicly.)

Edit: My point is that current drops to zero and there is no electrical energy to "burn off". If there were solid magnets in use or the electromagnets in the generator were still functional, I would like to speculate that some bits of the generator might get super hot, similar to how an induction stove works. (Your best bet is to cut the water and apply emergency brakes to the generators ASAP, if those even exist.)

Edit2: So, turbines are a thing. The water behind a dam probably isn't directly pushing a generator but some kind of turbine system. I would imagine there is transmission (or sorts) that can engage or disengage the generators.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Converting electrical energy into heat is trivial. The cooling towers associated with nuclear power plants exist for the purpose of dissipating waste heat by evaporating water and/or heating air. (But in the case of nuclear reactors, they're dissipating heat energy that was never converted into electrical energy.) Pumping in cold water from a lake or reservoir, heating it, and pumping it back out can also be used for the same purpose.

Water can absorb relatively large amounts of energy without much change in temperature. If you're thinking specifically of a hydroelectric dam, consider that simply letting the water flow through without turning turbines would cause most of the potential energy in that water to be converted into heat by default. Water at the bottom of a waterfall is warmer (by only about a tenth of a degree for Niagara falls) than water at the top.

[–] Limonene@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

This is kinda how nuclear reactors are anyway. You can't just shut them down instantly. The fuel rods produce energy for a while after the control rods are inserted, so they have to have dummy loads for them. I think it's usually just an emergency water supply that they can boil off.

I know some turbine systems have resistive loads that can be used to stop the turbine quickly in an emergency, but they are only meant to be used for an instant before they overheat.

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago