3 ms·
> Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel generators > Nuclear w
by nicoburns 5y ago
> Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel generators
> Nuclear will never appeal to market producers of energy. It's just too expensive.
It seems to me that these two sentences contradict. The first implies that Nuclear will be appealing for 20% of the energy market, which is still a huge market.
- ajross 5y agoIf it was appealing, private industry would be investing. What I'm saying is that the only time nuclear makes sense is when you're trying to back-fill the last 20% (or whatever) of capacity that can't easily be born by other renewable sources. That doesn't make that 20% magically profitable, it's a gap that needs to be filled (likely by public investment).
- gwbrooks 5y ago:::Helion's $500m funding round has entered the chat:::
- pfdietz 5y agoIt doesn't make sense for backfilling the last 20%. That last 20% isn't steady, it's highly intermittent demand, something that nuclear is terrible at addressing.
- nicoburns 5y agoIf we can work out a good storage technology (and I am optimistic about this), then I totally agree. If we can't, then nuclear with demand-following load might be the best available option.
- pfdietz 5y agoUsing nuclear for the last 20% makes no sense. Against wind/solar, you either use nuclear for everything, or you use it for nothing. There is no middle ground (well, except maybe in a tightly tuned scenario where solar could just be cheaper for daytime peak reduction, but even that is a bit iffy.)