3 ms·

It's not a matter of technical feasibility (i.e., you could do it, but is it the best. most stable way), it's what is the goal. All of those batteries require f

It's not a matter of technical feasibility (i.e., you could do it, but is it the best. most stable way), it's what is the goal. All of those batteries require fossil fuels to be produced, as do the solar panels. Favoring the model where you have to produce more (meaning more fossil fuels) is the antithesis to the greater point. The more efficient option—even if more expensive—should be preferred. You may end up getting similar results, but the overall impact of trying to make solar panels play catch-up is more destructive in the long run. And they don't even catch up. By your own math, even at 70% capacity a reactor is 3x as powerful. And re: the water requirements, those would also be a factor in hydroelectric so it's a moot point (assuming you see hydroelectric as a supplemental form of power to solar). I've yet to do research into inputs of manufacturing a plant vs solar/wind/etc. so can't give specifics but just in the abstract what you've described sounds more wasteful (and that's if it can be done—there is far less ambiguity with the nuclear option).

Retric 5y ago
The only necessary CO2 release from batteries is based on the current state of our global economy. Reduction in the amount fossil fuels used in the grid and mining equipment directly reduces the use of fossil fuels manufacturing batteries and solar panels all the way down to zero. As part of being massively more expensive, Nuclear actually involves significantly more indirect fossil fuel usage due to those costs. For example all a nuclear power plants requires onsite fossil fuel generators which need to be run regularly: http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Brochure_NPP_2_14_lay_ES.pdf http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Bro... Yet those generators are left off of assessments of CO2 releases associated with nuclear power plants. Similarly the centrifuges reacquired to manufacture nuclear fuel require vast amounts of electricity to manufacture and run. The nameplate generation from Nuclear further ignores those ongoing energy costs.

Retric 5y ago

The only necessary CO2 release from batteries is based on the current state of our global economy. Reduction in the amount fossil fuels used in the grid and mining equipment directly reduces the use of fossil fuels manufacturing batteries and solar panels all the way down to zero. As part of being massively more expensive, Nuclear actually involves significantly more indirect fossil fuel usage due to those costs. For example all a nuclear power plants requires onsite fossil fuel generators which need to be run regularly: http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Brochure_NPP_2_14_lay_ES.pdf http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Bro... Yet those generators are left off of assessments of CO2 releases associated with nuclear power plants. Similarly the centrifuges reacquired to manufacture nuclear fuel require vast amounts of electricity to manufacture and run. The nameplate generation from Nuclear further ignores those ongoing energy costs.