- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It’s worth noting that he also fired many of the staff who know how to ensure that they’re actually safe, as well as the staff who would approve financing.
It’s worth noting that he also fired many of the staff who know how to ensure that they’re actually safe, as well as the staff who would approve financing.
Nuclear has similar but opposite problem of renewables. Its hard to tune down and back up in power output, and its economics require near full capacity, and high market prices,to justify them.
Renewables are always better, because they don’t need as high market electricity prices, they have short and modular development times, modular battery addition.
Nuclear projects require suppression of renewables to ensure limited competition in supply, when they are finally built.
Nuclear doesnt need to ramp up and down. Just run them full tilt for baseline loads. Power use peaks during the day, when solar is most effective. Leave some extra unused nuclear capacity to pick up the slack when renewables cant meet demand, such as during winter storms. And then add batteries to smooth out the loads.
The right amount of nuclear is then minimum nightly demand. Right amount of solar might be minimum day time demand in spring. That would cut some nuclear sales. Which raises electricity price it needs for paying for its construction.
The economics of new construction favours renewables for any expansion of production, including future retirements.
And why important infrastructure should not be purely regulated by economics. Because corporations will always choose the most profits and not whats best for the people that use it.