Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by mzmoen on Monday March 01, 2021 @09:39AM
(#26303138)
This assumes that you're power generation always matches demand through time. If you had a sudden spike at night that you don't usually have (like in Texas where people kicked on their heat unexpectedly) and you were using solar, the mismatch would exist and you wouldn't be able to meet the load.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by bryanlarsen on Monday March 01, 2021 @10:21AM
(#26303540)
Exactly. You need natgas peakers (that aren't frozen) or charged batteries to deal with this. Nuclear, wind and solar are all unsuitable for this situation.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by hntrader on Monday March 01, 2021 @02:17PM
(#26306934)
What do you think of the claims of user "corty" elsewhere in this thread, who seems to say that nuclear isn't unsuitable for this situation?
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by bryanlarsen on Monday March 01, 2021 @04:41PM
(#26308830)
The primary problem with nuclear is the fact that it's insanely expensive. If you're not running it flat out 24/7, then the cost per MWh goes up dramatically.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by paranoidrobot on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @05:44PM
(#26322157)
Of all the other energy sources, it's the only one where we have to put serious consideration into warning people not to dig up the waste, and how to keep them from doing it thousands of years from now.
Neither wind nor nuclear are suitable to use for peak power.