4 ms·
Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.
by yellowapple 1y ago
Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.
- robotnikman 1y agoThis right here. It's not one or the other, its a diverse combination of all of them that makes for the best results.
- fundatus 1y agoBase load is a concept of the past, grids around the world are being redesigned to be flexible to reap zero-production-costs renewable energy. Nuclear (which is impossible to run economically as a flexible asset) simply does not fit into that new world anymore.
- yellowapple 1y agoIt'd be way easier to build a few nuclear plants than it would be to build an equivalent constant energy source from solar+wind and batteries. The nuclear plants would also consume far less land area.
- kulahan 1y agoDamn, so we’re left with nothing, because nuclear is by far the most viable moving forward.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoYou need solar and batteries for peak loads, not just solar In many places in the world, peak load does not occur during daylight hours, especially during winter And yes, further north the days are longer but the solar capture efficiency is also much lower
- yellowapple 1y agoTrue. I'm biased by living in a place where the peak load does happen during daylight hours (because that's when you need to run the A/C) and where heating usually happens via gas. Electric heating would indeed shift that dynamic (though municipal water heating would shift it the other way).