3 ms·

I dont know why you're being downvoted, you're correct. We need base load capacity to replace thermal fossil fuel generation, it's not negotiable if you want t

by Aloha 3y ago

I dont know why you're being downvoted, you're correct. We need base load capacity to replace thermal fossil fuel generation, it's not negotiable if you want the lights to work reliably 24 hours a day, no matter the weather conditions. Be it nuclear or more hydro - or we reconfigure to only run hydro when we need base load - either way it must be there. I dont think we can reach zero fossil fuels, because of the need for peaking generation - but we can get pretty close though. Having to fire up a dozen gas turbines during severe weather conditions seems like a small price to pay if the other 99% of the time we could go without any fossil fuels at all.

ThatPlayer 3y ago
There's another issue with firing up dozens of gas turbines: they don't spin up instantly. Hawaii (and California) are already starting to run into this issue, where peak use follows sunset. So even if you don't need it, you have to keep some generators going so they can ramp up fast enough when solar drops off and peak use starts. Otherwise you get outages. They've named this issue the duck curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
- Aloha 3y ago
  With at most a ~30 min dispatch time, I dont know why a turbine wouldn't be adequate - what the turbines can't do, I would think a battery storage should be able to do. I suspect we have the same issue in Texas too. What gets me is people propsing battery storage as a replacement for turbine peaking plants - which seems like a poor mix. I wish more places could build pumped storage, but it's hard to build. I'm still a firm believer in nuclear though, with a mix of nuclear, renewables (solar, hydro, wind), batteries, and gas turbines, we should be able to solve this.