3 ms·
Majority of energy consumption and population happens in cities / industry, so if we are talking significant co2 soonest, we should really focus on these. For
by korantu 8y ago
Majority of energy consumption and population happens in cities / industry, so if we are talking significant co2 soonest, we should really focus on these.
For large consumers like these to go solar/wind, you will have to really over-provision solar/wind so that minimum possible power output is still enough. (Calm night, anyone?) This looks highly inefficient and tough to predict.
Whereas nuclear can and are already operating in load following mode routinely: [1]
[1] http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-loa...
- Retric 8y agoFirst, most city’s have a lot of space for solar and can easily import wind power. ~66w/m2 average over 24 hours is 66 MW per km^2 / the percentage covered in panels and really adds up. Wind really can't be calm for long periods over large areas because large areas will always have temperatures differences. It's like saying what if the sun does not rise tomorrow? If that's actually happening you have much bigger problems. Load following nuclear power plants become even more expensive. Not a huge deal on nuclear subs, but a major issue for civilian infrastructure. Just like energy storage they simply increase the cost of energy above alternatives. PS: Now if you could get nuclear without any form of subsides down to about 2.5c/kWh then running 24/7 or peaking power with average load's of around 30% down at around 8c/kWh then I would agree it had a major place. But, it's just no where near those numbers.