4 ms·
It largely is a dichotomy, because nuclear power largely makes wind and solar redundant. Peak energy demand occurs right around or after sundown. If we're going
by manfredo 6y ago
It largely is a dichotomy, because nuclear power largely makes wind and solar redundant. Peak energy demand occurs right around or after sundown. If we're going to fulfill this demand with nuclear, then we could just run the nuclear plants all day long and build no solar or wind.
Solar and wind are a good complement to natural gas. We can dial back the gas when the intermittent sources of energy are producing. This both saves carbon and money, since fuel is a substantial portion of a gas plant', operating cost.
By comparison, a nuclear plant costs just as much to run at maximum capacity all day long as it does at partial capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to full peak demand, which coincides with the trough of renewables' generation, then just run the plants at full capacity all day and skip building renewables.
- godelski 6y agoExcept this isn't true. We've always had and will continue to have a diversified portfolio of energy sources because the cost of production changes depending on your environment. There's this bad idea flowing around that prices are consistent. Some places nuclear is better. Some places wind is. Some places solar is. It is also good to not be solely dependent upon a single instance because of security issues (one of many reasons France is targeting a 50% nuclear power generation). You can't use averages and apply it to extremes. The world isn't homogeneous.