3 ms·
They are opposing each other because of the combination of two factors: * Peak energy demand happens when intermittent sources are at their lowest production [
by Manuel_D 4y ago
They are opposing each other because of the combination of two factors:
* Peak energy demand happens when intermittent sources are at their lowest production [1].
* Nuclear power is as cheap to run at 100% capacity as it is to run at 50% or 25% capacity.
If you build enough nuclear power to fulfill the peak demand when renewables aren't producing, then you've already built enough nuclear to power the grid all day. And since nuclear is just as cheap to run at 100% capacity there's no point in provisioning renewables. Renewables work well when paired with a dispatchable energy source like gas or hydroelectricity. The former emits carbon and the latter is geographically dependent. In areas without hydroelectric potential, nuclear is the only existing option for full decarbonization.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
- nine_k 4y agoThis is right, and again, I'm pretty pro-nuclear. The upside of solar generation is its potential for really rapid deployment, and for piecemeal deployment. I can't afford to have a personal nuclear reactor, but I likely would be able to adorn my house with some solar panels, some batteries, and maybe a heat pump to create ice during the day's heat peak and use it after dusk. When I'd be able to afford a house, that is %)