3 ms·
Most renewables aren't viable for base load power. Nuclear is viable only for base load power. Realistically they are competing for different parts of the power
by TimPC 7y ago
Most renewables aren't viable for base load power. Nuclear is viable only for base load power. Realistically they are competing for different parts of the power utilization and shouldn't be infighting at all. You want nuclear for the amount of power that's always on the grid. You want renewables to be able to handle spiking. The hard part of renewables now is the unpredictable output from varying winds and levels of sunlight. The cost problem is solved. If someone could come up with a way to make renewables very consistent in power output they'd blow nuclear out of the water. One of the reasons hydroelectric is so effective is the amount of water going over a suitable waterfall has a viable minimum (it might sometimes increase after rains but even in dry periods it has a predictable power level).
- m0zg 7y agoNot sure why this was downvoted. It's the truth. The two don't (or at least shouldn't) really compete, they (and especially solar) are almost exactly complementary to each other.
- pfdietz 7y agoIt's not the truth. The grid could be powered with no "base load sources" at all. Intermittent + dispatchable could cover everything.
- pfdietz 7y agoThey are both competing for the "inflexible" part of the power supply. They step on each others toes, and do not work well together. A grid with a lot of renewables will have the price of power driven to near zero too often for nuclear to survive.