• frezik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    Nuclear is not going to help that. It doesn’t synergize well with wind and solar. You want something that can scale up when wind and solar drop off. Nuclear only makes sense if you can run it at the same level all the time.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        There is. Clouds come in, and all that cheap solar goes away. You want something else to ramp up. Clouds go away, solar is dumpling dirt cheap power to the grid, and those other things ramp down.

        Nuclear is not the solution to that.

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Batteries and other power storage exist though… just run nuclear to x% percentage and y exists in battery form to cover potential solar/wind/geothermal/tidal outages.

          • frezik
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            When you have batteries, you don’t need nuclear. You just need solar and wind.

            Edit: I’ll also point out that there are other arguments from nuclear advocates (bad ones that don’t realize where we are in the tech development) saying storage solutions aren’t ready. Estoppel much?

        • guacupado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Clouds come in, and all that cheap solar goes away

          I can’t believe we’re about to hit 2024 and people are still saying this.