Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by legulere on Friday April 02, 2021 @05:34PM (#26676229)

Those fears have been discussed endlessly. Just look at the graph I posted to see the change in the last years that is still continuing.

Availability has nothing to do with what you are talking about (it’s much higher for photovoltaics anyway). Out of the 49.5% non-renewables only gas which makes up 12.5 percent of electricity can really be used to follow demand. Coal and nuclear are too slow for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by effie on Friday April 02, 2021 @08:21PM (#26677261)

By availability I meant fraction of time that it is available for power generation. This is closer to technical term "capacity factor", which is higher for nuclear energy than for PV energy, so my point stands.

Modern nuclear plants can do load following and they do so in France and in Germany. So why is "nuclear too slow"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by imtringued on Saturday April 03, 2021 @03:39AM (#26679040)

Total pollution is the only factor that matters. Intermittency is irrelevant for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and fighting climate change.

Intermittency is mostly relevant for 100% zero carbon energy which is a goal that is incredibly far away. At least another 10 years before we even think about it and then another 10 years to do it.

[ Parent | on HN ]