A big problem with solar and wind is that they are not as reliable as nuclear. In a worst-kaas scenario neither will produce energy because there is no sun or wind and there is no way to store enough electricity for these moments. Therefore we need a constant source that creates electricity for those moments. Of course, we do also need renewables, but nuclear is essential because it is reliable.
That's why places that use mostly renewables and no coal or nuclear often have gas fired generation which can start up in the rare cases when it's needed. These places already exist and do just fine with no nuclear.
I'm sorry but burning methane isn't doing just fine.
It's in-fill which is only used when needed and it's reducing every year as more renewable sources are added.
is only used when needed
Sure, but it's still GHG emissions, "only when needed" or not. The whole point we're making is those gas generators should have been nuclear generators in the first place.
And we continue building gas and coal power plants. Why? Build nuclear plants instead.
It's only temporary measure while other renewables come on board. It can be built, serve its purpose and then decommissioned before a nuclear plant could even have been built. As a stop-gap it's the "best worst solution".
This may be true, but I am not convinced that it is any better than nuclear. To start up regeneration quick the gas winning needs to be on a pilot light (dutch source: https://nos.nl/l/2485108). In Groningen there are (according to the same source) 5 places on pilot light that together must produce at least 2.8 billion cubic metres of gas a year. This is quite a lot of fossil fuels, so I would rather have a nuclear power plant than this gas winning (which comes with other disadvantages as well).
So it's more nuclear vs renewables and a ton of batteries. (Or other storage options)
What it really should be is nuclear plus renewables plus a ton of batteries (or other storage options) vs fossil fuels.
A big problem with solar and wind is that they are not as reliable as nuclear. In a worst-kaas scenario neither will produce energy because there is no sun or wind and there is no way to store enough electricity for these moments. Therefore we need a constant source that creates electricity for those moments. Of course, we do also need renewables, but nuclear is essential because it is reliable.
That's why places that use mostly renewables and no coal or nuclear often have gas fired generation which can start up in the rare cases when it's needed. These places already exist and do just fine with no nuclear.
I'm sorry but burning methane isn't doing just fine.
It's in-fill which is only used when needed and it's reducing every year as more renewable sources are added.
Sure, but it's still GHG emissions, "only when needed" or not. The whole point we're making is those gas generators should have been nuclear generators in the first place.
And we continue building gas and coal power plants. Why? Build nuclear plants instead.
It's only temporary measure while other renewables come on board. It can be built, serve its purpose and then decommissioned before a nuclear plant could even have been built. As a stop-gap it's the "best worst solution".
This may be true, but I am not convinced that it is any better than nuclear. To start up regeneration quick the gas winning needs to be on a pilot light (dutch source: https://nos.nl/l/2485108). In Groningen there are (according to the same source) 5 places on pilot light that together must produce at least 2.8 billion cubic metres of gas a year. This is quite a lot of fossil fuels, so I would rather have a nuclear power plant than this gas winning (which comes with other disadvantages as well).
So it's more nuclear vs renewables and a ton of batteries. (Or other storage options)
What it really should be is nuclear plus renewables plus a ton of batteries (or other storage options) vs fossil fuels.