• Serpent@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You will need long term storage in both cases. Nuclear can’t act as a peaker because you can’t quickly ramp up or down the generation. Nuclear can only perform as baseload which, in theory, could be provided by a renewable energy mix if the install base is high enough.

    I don’t disagree with your point that it isn’t a simple direct comparison but any sensible energy mix will still require storage. I find it difficult to see the economic case for nuclear if renewables can be installed in sufficient quantities, given that nuclear is roughly 4 times as expensive as solar and wind.

    • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nuclear can only perform as baseload

      That’s only true for NPPs built decades ago. Modern designs can also do load-following power. For peaks you have renewables, of course, they complement each other. Diversity makes a healthy grid.

      • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Niclear has high investment cost and very low production cost which incentivises runnig at max output for as long as possible. This might block out renewables from the grid if their production cost is higher and make it less profitable to build them. So its really not a Symbiosis between nuclear and regenerative