• Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear solves one of the biggest issues with renewables because the energy output can be adjusted.

    This in turn means that you need less energy storage capacity in order to supplant existing technologies.

    Honestly I’m just happy we’re moving away from fossil fuels.

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear is a great supplement to wind and solar PV.

      Especially when the share of renewables get close to 100%.

      Going from 85-90% to 100% imply to almost double the capacity of renewables energy available, even with batteries and thermal power stations as a backup.

      On the other hand having 10-15% of nuclear really helps to stabilize the grid and lower the need to oversize the renewables power production.

    • HorriblePerson@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, power output can be regulated in nuclear energy. It is, however, not economical to do so most off the time. Building a nuclear reactor is a massive capital investment, so any time you’re not running at 100% you are increasing your payback time, which leads to more expensive electricity.

    • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m taking a course on power generation, transmission, and distribution, and you basically said what I wanted to say.

      If you look at generation in California, there’s a huge peak during the day (due to the increased supply of power from solar) and a decreased demand for power in general (because needs are being met by individual solar). The extra power needs to be stored/used or wasted. No other options, which is what makes solar weaker (than it could be) right now - we don’t have the storage capacity to be keeping the excess for nighttime.