What is it with nuclear proponents and completely misunderatanding what baseload means
Renewables need the exact opposite of a baseload as a complement
SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs
might or would not will. If we go by hypotheticals, then any of the twenty promising new battery technologies “will” make battery storage so cheap that we will go with 100% renewables
Where did I mention we shouldn’t also use wind and solar?
Maybe I’m not the one misunderstanding….
And you’re making assumptions based on your own misguided beliefs and biased opinion.
The technology isn’t there yet but it’s not as impossible as you would make it seem: we have been using molten salt in solar powered plants for a while now. We are getting close to using it in commercial NPPs and there are many test projects already running. Luckily governments worldwide have seen the potential benefits and are investing heavily in them. If we leave everything to the “nuclear scary and bad” crowd we wouldn’t get anywhere…
And it is complete nonsense. Of course you need baseload power. Thinking you can supply the entire world with backup power from batteries alone is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough storage capacity as it is, not to mention when we want to switch the world to EVs.
people think who throw the word “baseload” around.
I used a word. I’m not throwing anything around, and I don’t have anything to do with what other people do or say.
And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it, and clouds their judgment. Maybe you watched Chernobyl on HBO, but that is not something that can happen with modern reactors.
You haven’t made a single valid point and started off with personal attacks. That is not a way to have a discussion, with anyone, about anything.
Where am I claiming we need to supply the entire world with nuclear power? Again, this isn’t a nuclear vs. renewables discussion. But nuclear can provide baseload power when renewables fail. Which will mostly be nights in winter that have little wind.
Wow genius argument.
Just your wilful misinterpretation of it. And please refrain from personal attacks when a discussion doesn’t go your way. It is not doing your case any good.
You mean the things with storage that you connect to the grid,
Yes. Those. We don’t have the production capacity to make them for everyone worldwide. What is your point?
click on my power suppliers website right now?
You will also need the right EV, the right vehicle-to-grid charging station and most importantly, a garage or a carport. So no, not just a click.
Also it will only supply enough storage for a home. Businesses and industries need power as well…
And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Who said anything about going without storage? Come to think of it, let me ask this meta question: why do people always think in absolutes and convenient boxes?
npps are useless
How are NPPs useless? You don’t need so much solar that it does everything by itself if you have nuclear for baseload. Those solar panels are the things that will become useless come winter time. But yes, when there is a lot of sun, NPPs can be turned down during the day and be spun back up during the night. That’s how France does it already. And the still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech may be even more flexible.
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
My argument isn’t based on any cost analysis. Where have I mentioned cost at all? I’m not arguing nuclear is going to be cheaper.
The issue is that we already don’t have enough production capacity for (Li-ion) EV batteries, we don’t have any production capacity for the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech, but we do have production capacity for NPPs.
Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and bet it all on a still-fictional-but-likely battery tech?
What is it with nuclear proponents and completely misunderatanding what baseload means
Renewables need the exact opposite of a baseload as a complement
might or would not will. If we go by hypotheticals, then any of the twenty promising new battery technologies “will” make battery storage so cheap that we will go with 100% renewables
Where did I mention we shouldn’t also use wind and solar?
Maybe I’m not the one misunderstanding….
And you’re making assumptions based on your own misguided beliefs and biased opinion.
The technology isn’t there yet but it’s not as impossible as you would make it seem: we have been using molten salt in solar powered plants for a while now. We are getting close to using it in commercial NPPs and there are many test projects already running. Luckily governments worldwide have seen the potential benefits and are investing heavily in them. If we leave everything to the “nuclear scary and bad” crowd we wouldn’t get anywhere…
Where did I mention you mentioning we shouldn’t also use wind and solar?
I said nuclear doesn’t complement renewables well, unlike a lot of people think who throw the word “baseload” around.
I also didn’t say “nuclear scary and bad”.
And it is complete nonsense. Of course you need baseload power. Thinking you can supply the entire world with backup power from batteries alone is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough storage capacity as it is, not to mention when we want to switch the world to EVs.
I used a word. I’m not throwing anything around, and I don’t have anything to do with what other people do or say.
And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it, and clouds their judgment. Maybe you watched Chernobyl on HBO, but that is not something that can happen with modern reactors.
You haven’t made a single valid point and started off with personal attacks. That is not a way to have a discussion, with anyone, about anything.
Thinking you can supply the entire world with nuclear power is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough nuclear power as it is
Wow genius argument.
You mean the things with storage that you connect to the grid, which I could sign up for with a click on my power suppliers website right now?
Where am I claiming we need to supply the entire world with nuclear power? Again, this isn’t a nuclear vs. renewables discussion. But nuclear can provide baseload power when renewables fail. Which will mostly be nights in winter that have little wind.
Just your wilful misinterpretation of it. And please refrain from personal attacks when a discussion doesn’t go your way. It is not doing your case any good.
Yes. Those. We don’t have the production capacity to make them for everyone worldwide. What is your point?
You will also need the right EV, the right vehicle-to-grid charging station and most importantly, a garage or a carport. So no, not just a click.
Also it will only supply enough storage for a home. Businesses and industries need power as well…
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Who said anything about going without storage? Come to think of it, let me ask this meta question: why do people always think in absolutes and convenient boxes?
How are NPPs useless? You don’t need so much solar that it does everything by itself if you have nuclear for baseload. Those solar panels are the things that will become useless come winter time. But yes, when there is a lot of sun, NPPs can be turned down during the day and be spun back up during the night. That’s how France does it already. And the still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech may be even more flexible.
My argument isn’t based on any cost analysis. Where have I mentioned cost at all? I’m not arguing nuclear is going to be cheaper.
The issue is that we already don’t have enough production capacity for (Li-ion) EV batteries, we don’t have any production capacity for the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech, but we do have production capacity for NPPs.
Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and bet it all on a still-fictional-but-likely battery tech?