4 ms·
Then just deploy more? The difference in price compared to nuclear is so high that we can easily install double the renewables we need and still come out cheape
by bildung 5y ago
Then just deploy more? The difference in price compared to nuclear is so high that we can easily install double the renewables we need and still come out cheaper.
- PaulHoule 5y agoIt is zero at night. 2x zero is still zero. This kind of thinking is exactly what's wrong with armchair modeling of renewables.
- bildung 5y agoNeither molten salt nor wind are zero at night. In fact, wind usually is higher at night than during the day.
- sportanova 5y agoMolten salt storage doesn't work well in practice. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/nevadas-crescent-dunes-csp-project-that-includes-molten-salt-storage-goes-belly-up/#gref https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/nevadas-crescen... Even if you're somewhere where the wind could give you 90% of your energy, you'll still need a reliable, baseline power source if you don't want everything to randomly shut down the other 10% of the time. Wind + solar aren't as cheap as the LCOE makes it seem because you always have to pay for another source of power as baseline. If you added similar subsidies to natural gas it would be by far the cheapest energy source
- bildung 5y agoThat's a problem with this particular plant, it works fine e.g. in Spain.
- sportanova 5y agoThe only one I know of in Spain is Andasol, which is small scale and enormously expensive