3 ms·

Thanks for the more in-depth analysis. It's interesting. But my point - which I didn't really say clearly enough - is: you can't only compare MW, which is what

Thanks for the more in-depth analysis. It's interesting. But my point - which I didn't really say clearly enough - is: you can't only compare MW, which is what a lot of these calculations tend to do, even if you scale provides for capacity. The fact that nuclear (or any base load provider) works all the time makes it much, much more valuable than something that works intermittently.

cesarb 3y ago
> The fact that nuclear (or any base load provider) works all the time It doesn't; for instance, the nuclear reactors near where I live have to power down for a whole month once every year, for refueling and maintenance. That's around a 92% capacity factor.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  That is planned in advance, though. Wind turbines have additional maintenance downtime too.
Swizec 3y ago
Yes and nuclear is much more compact. Wind farms take up lots of space. It’s a shame we aren’t building more smaller reactors quicker. I think it would solve a lot of the problems that come from treating every plant as a unique one off megaproject.