3 ms·
I understand, but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load. EU is just burning money left and right. The transition could be slower, mo
by kvgr 2y ago
I understand, but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load.
EU is just burning money left and right. The transition could be slower, more green and more cost effective and with less impact on industry if it just wasn`t driven by fake "green" ideology. And antinuclear fear mongering.
- Sebb767 2y ago> but there is no need to stabilize when you have big nuclear base load Of course there is. What you're stabilizing is varying consumer demand, not the (quite long-term) shutdown of power stations.
- JanSt 2y agoVarying consumer demand can easily be matched by nuclear power. They can run gradients as high as gas turbines, but it's not good to go really low quickly because frequent and rapid adjustments in a nuclear reactor's output can lead to increased wear and tear. France is doing a really good job of matching demand and supply with their fleet.
- JanSt 2y agoThat argument is popular among the 100% renewables crowd in Germany. I mean, achieving 90-100% renewables creates a problem you wouldn't have if you were just running on nuclear power, and now they portray it as a problem of nuclear power. If you're arguing from a dogmatic point of view where renewables are the absolute main energy source and you occasionally need to supplement it, gas makes sense. It's stupid though.