4 ms·

I'd much rather have solar/wind/nuclear than solar/wind/gas.

• nostrademons 8y ago
  I would too, but that's not a possible combination. The issue is that at any given moment, the amount of electricity produced must equal the amount consumed. Solar and wind have production curves that are defined by the sun and wind, and typically peak early morning (for wind) and mid-day (for solar), which are often not the times of peak demand. So when everyone turns on their lights, TVs, stoves, and laptops in the evenings, there needs to be a quick-responding power plant to meet the excess demand. By far the preferred technology for this is a natural gas turbine, because it's one of the few technologies that can adjust its output within seconds. Nuclear power plants take several hours to days to respond to shifts in demand, because the control rods must be moved, the nuclear chain reaction must speed up, it needs to generate more heat, that heat needs to boil water, and the steam needs to make its way to the turbines. There's more information in the wikipedia pages for "base load", "load following", and "peaking" power plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant Interestingly, solar-thermal is apparently coming online as a potential technology for peaking power plants, which could reduce the need for natural gas.
• mpax 8y ago
  Afaik the problem is that the currently installed nuclear generators cannot stop their operation in the middle of a fuel cycle.