2 ms·
>And in that case your natural gas plants only have to run for a couple of hours between sunset and bedtime instead of all day long. Right. So we agree, solar
by macspoofing 7y ago
>And in that case your natural gas plants only have to run for a couple of hours between sunset and bedtime instead of all day long.
Right. So we agree, solar cannot remove carbon emissions. And I thought the entire point is to remove fossil fuels entirely from energy generation, not just reduce it.
>you use nuclear at night
It doesn't work like that. Nuclear can take days to ramp up and ramp down. Solar does not play well with nuclear.
That's one problem.
A more major issue is...if you're using nuclear, why the heck do you even need solar? This is the energy mix of my home province[1] - we're essentially fossil fuel-free because our energy mix is nuclear and hydro. There is no point in increasing investment in solar and wind. But we're doing it, not because it's good for reducing carbon emission, but because it's a fad.
[1] http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago> So we agree, solar cannot remove carbon emissions. Except for all the carbon emissions it does remove while the sun is shining and you didn't have to run that natural gas plant for 14 hours instead of 2. > It doesn't work like that. Nuclear can take days to ramp up and ramp down. Solar does not play well with nuclear. You don't ramp it up and down at all. You have 100GW of demand at night and 200GW during the day, so you have 100GW of nuclear and 100GW of solar. Nuclear generates 100GW night and day and the solar generates an additional 100GW during the day. > A more major issue is...if you're using nuclear, why the heck do you even need solar? Because it's cheaper during the day and there is more demand during the day.