you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But it is essentially solved. There are plenty of places in the world that use a variety of power sources including a large mix of renewables without needing nuclear. And they work just fine. I'm surprised that so many people here seem to be ignoring the reality that nuclear is unnecessary and very expensive compared with other power sources.

For example South Australia uses mostly renewable energy sources today - primarily solar and wind with some in-fill from battery and gas. The last coal plant there was closed in 2016. There's no nuclear power in Australia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Talk to me when it's all battery and no gas. That's what nuclear would be replacing, not the renewables. Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other

    Not at all. Nuclear's terrible at ramping up for short term loads like in-fill gaps. Gas can be idle most of the time and then fired up as required. You don't want to be relying on it most of the time but for in-fill it's cheaper and better than nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So your grand plan is to keep carbon emitting sources until batteries can completely cover the baseload in all conditions? That's a non-solution.

    Batteries, limited as they are, can certainly mitigate ramping issues with nuclear, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    No, that's not it. Ultimately a mix of renewables will replace everything. Add say tidal and pumped hydro plus maybe some geothermal etc. and you don't need any non-renewable energy sources.

  • source
  • parent