3 ms·
If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. And the contrapositive as well: if SMRs
by pfdietz 1y ago
If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. And the contrapositive as well: if SMRs are not cheap enough to displace solar and wind, they aren't cheap enough to act as backup. The scenario where it's just a backup never arises in cost minimized solutions.
- kitd 1y ago> If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. That doesn't follow necessarily. Wind & solar being the most cost effective doesn't mean you remove all backups just because they aren't as cost effective.
- graemep 1y agoIts the other way around. If you have sufficient nuclear to act as a backup, then you have sufficient that you do not need the wind and solar in addition.