• @leds@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -117 months ago

    Nuclear is not an option since it can not be scaled up and down fast enough to follow changes in demand (or the changes in very predictable renewable output) , so you’re left with pumped storage, grid interconnectivity , and demand shifting until we can cheaply use the excess in renewables to make synthetic fuels.

    • @Forester@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      What kind of crack are you smoking? The entire point of the nuclear is so that it can take the base load that we rely on Fossil fuels to cover so that we can use renewables and battery storage in combination with nuclear power to meet peak demand.

      • NekuSoul
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The entire point of the nuclear is so that it can take the base load

        The idea to cover baseload demand with its own baseload power generation is an outdated concept though from a time when demand was inflexible and generation could be controlled to fit. Now that generation is dynamic, having baseload power generation is the opposite of what’s needed. We need flexible backup generation and more flexible demand to bring down baseload demand.

      • @leds@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        07 months ago

        I’m on renewable crack, you should try it sometimes. I promise it is only slightly addictive.

        My point is that nuclear is only good for base load unless there is storage and if you want to use renewables to cover peak demand then you also need storage. but if you have storage then there is no reason not to use 100% renewables

        You can also chose to use 100% nuclear, either enough to cover peak demand (and throw away the rest when not needed) or in combination with storage. It just going to be so much more expensive…