3 ms·

1) I don't think its a zero sum game, nuclear doesn't preclude solar or wind. In-fact, thats how it's working now. Competition will drive improvements and optim

by redm 6y ago

1) I don't think its a zero sum game, nuclear doesn't preclude solar or wind. In-fact, thats how it's working now. Competition will drive improvements and optimization. 2) Accidents do happen with technology and the repercussions of nuclear accidents are serious. That doesn't mean we shouldn't re-think the technology and how it can be applied in a better or safer way, including cold fusion.

GuB-42 6y ago
> I don't think its a zero sum game, nuclear doesn't preclude solar or wind. That's what I'd like to think, but it doesn't seem to be a good match. Nuclear plants want constant power output, they are ideal for base load. Solar and wind production vary during the day, and they don't always meet demand. That problem is called the "duck curve": too much is produced during the day and too little just after sunset. That's the reason why the best plants to complement solar and wind are those that can vary their output on demand. And unfortunately, that's typically coal (see Germany). Hydro would be ideal but its capacity depends is limited by the terrain.
- jabl 6y ago
  > Nuclear plants want constant power output, they are ideal for base load. Solar and wind production vary during the day, and they don't always meet demand. That problem is called the "duck curve": too much is produced during the day and too little just after sunset. That's the reason why the best plants to complement solar and wind are those that can vary their output on demand. And unfortunately, that's typically coal (see Germany). Hydro would be ideal but its capacity depends is limited by the terrain. Modeling suggests there is a place for nuclear, or more generally, dispatchable (firm) low-carbon resources in deep decarbonized electricity grids. See e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 As for the duck curve, you can flatten it with solar panels that are angled to the south-west rather than straight to the south, and some moderate amount of battery storage. That still leaves the problem of how to deal with the baseload. Nuclear could be a good candidate for that.

by redm 6y ago

GuB-42 6y ago

> I don't think its a zero sum game, nuclear doesn't preclude solar or wind. That's what I'd like to think, but it doesn't seem to be a good match. Nuclear plants want constant power output, they are ideal for base load. Solar and wind production vary during the day, and they don't always meet demand. That problem is called the "duck curve": too much is produced during the day and too little just after sunset. That's the reason why the best plants to complement solar and wind are those that can vary their output on demand. And unfortunately, that's typically coal (see Germany). Hydro would be ideal but its capacity depends is limited by the terrain.

jabl 6y ago
> Nuclear plants want constant power output, they are ideal for base load. Solar and wind production vary during the day, and they don't always meet demand. That problem is called the "duck curve": too much is produced during the day and too little just after sunset. That's the reason why the best plants to complement solar and wind are those that can vary their output on demand. And unfortunately, that's typically coal (see Germany). Hydro would be ideal but its capacity depends is limited by the terrain. Modeling suggests there is a place for nuclear, or more generally, dispatchable (firm) low-carbon resources in deep decarbonized electricity grids. See e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 As for the duck curve, you can flatten it with solar panels that are angled to the south-west rather than straight to the south, and some moderate amount of battery storage. That still leaves the problem of how to deal with the baseload. Nuclear could be a good candidate for that.