3 ms·

re #7: https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...

re #7: https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi... > ‘Baseload power stations’ are inflexible in operation, in the sense that they are unsuitable for following the variations in demand and supply on timescales of minutes and hours, so they have to be supplemented with flexible peak-load and slightly flexible intermediate-load power stations. As far as why nuclear plays poorly with solar, for example, consider a PV system that generates, at noon, 100% of demand. You'd want to shut down alternative power sources at this time - that's not efficient at all with nuclear or coal. As far as safety, what are your thoughts on cancelling Price-Anderson accident indemnity laws, and having owners and operators of nuclear power plants accept full liability, no pass-on to the taxpayer?

q1w2 5y ago
You do not need to power down/up the nuclear plants at all. This is a myth. It is cheaper to just throw away any excess power it generates. Uranium is so energy dense that it doesn't cost anything to do that. This is amazing when you think about it. If you really want to capture it - create battery systems. > what are your thoughts on cancelling Price-Anderson accident indemnity laws One of the biggest challenges of nuclear plant construction is all the frivolous lawsuits, so I would really really want to know the exact details before making a determination on those laws. Often they are sold as "safety", but are really just ways to obstruct the process. Nuclear plants these days are incredibly safe.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  So you are in favor of the elimination of Price-Anderson?