3 ms·
Answered my own questions, posting in case my thoughts match someone else's. Did I understand correctly: Wind and solar are better than nuclear because nuclear
by j-bos 4y ago
Answered my own questions, posting in case my thoughts match someone else's.
Did I understand correctly: Wind and solar are better than nuclear because nuclear isn't cost effective at having enough slack for a polar vortex?
But if that's the case, don't wind and solar fail in a polar vortex?
Ah, you're saying that nuclear, wind, and solar all require storage. Got it.
Then the question would be how much storage do they require. Which I guess is what you're saying.
- mrep 4y agoYes, wind/solar require more peaker plants to handle their unreliability compared to nuclear but seeing as nuclear is 3x as expensive, I don't see it as the optimal solution to getting carbon neutral.