Can we please just have both?

The Picard Maneuver@startrek.website to Memes@sopuli.xyz – 444 points –
startrek.website
77

You are viewing a single comment

Nuclear solves one of the biggest issues with renewables because the energy output can be adjusted.

This in turn means that you need less energy storage capacity in order to supplant existing technologies.

Honestly I'm just happy we're moving away from fossil fuels.

Nuclear is a great supplement to wind and solar PV.

Especially when the share of renewables get close to 100%.

Going from 85-90% to 100% imply to almost double the capacity of renewables energy available, even with batteries and thermal power stations as a backup.

On the other hand having 10-15% of nuclear really helps to stabilize the grid and lower the need to oversize the renewables power production.

Yes, power output can be regulated in nuclear energy. It is, however, not economical to do so most off the time. Building a nuclear reactor is a massive capital investment, so any time you're not running at 100% you are increasing your payback time, which leads to more expensive electricity.

I'm taking a course on power generation, transmission, and distribution, and you basically said what I wanted to say.

If you look at generation in California, there's a huge peak during the day (due to the increased supply of power from solar) and a decreased demand for power in general (because needs are being met by individual solar). The extra power needs to be stored/used or wasted. No other options, which is what makes solar weaker (than it could be) right now - we don't have the storage capacity to be keeping the excess for nighttime.