3 ms·
I would expect that in most places this will shift to natural gas, given that natural gas is more economically viable than coal for new plants. But still, both
by ashtonkem 5y ago
I would expect that in most places this will shift to natural gas, given that natural gas is more economically viable than coal for new plants. But still, both are fossil fuels, so neither option is great.
- Gwypaas 5y agoIt's all about the geographical decoupling with local storage and smart consumers to smooth the loads. For example tying the charging of your electric car while it's parked to the current price. Spatial and temporal arbitrage of energy, which nuclear is completely awful at. Or using Swedish, Norwegian hydro and wind together with German, British and Danish wind. These links are on the same scale as nuclear reactors. Germany <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink UK <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link UK (Scotland) <-> Norway (On hold by Norway, cleared on Scottish side) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect Denmark <-> Norway (1977) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- xyzzyz 5y agoNo, gas is not more economical everywhere. It is in places which have gas, but most of Europe doesn’t have it — it has coal, though. For most of Europe, betting on gas means putting themselves under Kremlin control for its basic needs.