3 ms·
In the US, we already have about ~25% of power coming from nuclear and Hydro. That's a huge chunk of our base load. Add in ~7% offshore wind, ~4% for onshore,
by onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
In the US, we already have about ~25% of power coming from nuclear and Hydro. That's a huge chunk of our base load.
Add in ~7% offshore wind, ~4% for onshore, and ~4% storage for pumped hydro, and we would be just fine with the rest coming from solar & a hodge podge of other renewables.
And we'll have natural gas power plants in commission for another 30 years. Why shut them down? We can use them in the Winter. 30 years is more than enough time to transition to near 100% renewables.
If mini nuclear reactors pan out and can replace even a fraction of the coal plants out there - our base load will be covered.
At night, in the winter, we use about half as much electricity as during the day in the summer - when Solar works best.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoI was informed by the parent comment that Nuclear and Hydro were obsolete too. Not just natural gas and coal.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoObsolete means we're unlikely to add a lot more energy generation from them - but not that we'll decommission what we have or stop maintaining them. This is especially true for Hydro. I doubt we'll ever add much more nuclear if not mini nuclear reactors - that's why I'm really excited about the possibilities for them.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoThat's not usually what the word "obsolete" means, but thanks for clearing that up.
- tuatoru 4y agoThank you. To add to that, I said nothing about storage. There is not much clarity about storage as yet. Pumped hydro, compressed air, thermal (hot rocks), hydrogen or ammonia: they could all be viable alongside batteries (for grid stabilization and short term storage). And more besides them, probably. It's also not clear to me which battery chemistries will win for grid storage. Possibly several of them. Storage is where the R&D action is.