3 ms·

I am overall a strong proponent of nuclear power -- but I gave you a point and bookmarked the article and this discussion under the "nuclear" tag for future ref

I am overall a strong proponent of nuclear power -- but I gave you a point and bookmarked the article and this discussion under the "nuclear" tag for future reference. I am a larger proponent of renewables in almost all forms, but they all share one really critical problem: they can't promise to scale to meet short-term spikes and drops in demand. For that, you need a fuel-based form of energy, and of those, nuclear is still the best we have. (But demand for fuel energy can be reduced by rushing as quickly as possible to large-scale renewables and new energy storage technologies, and I hope that happens.)

philipkglass 9y ago
Nuclear is not suited for balancing short-term spikes and drops in demand either. Fast balancing comes from spinning reserve, batteries (early stages still), reservoir-backed hydro power, and open cycle turbines. Take a look here at how little nuclear output ramps up or down over the course of a week, compared to every other source: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ But nuclear generation could improve its economics and reduce the use of inefficient fossil fueled open-cycle turbines/spinning reserve if battery storage becomes more common and nuclear electricity recharges the batteries for meeting daily peaks.