|
|
|
|
|
by strainer
1520 days ago
|
|
You need forms of storage for that. The conundrum can be turned on its head - "What do you do when you have nuclear and the businesses and factories are closed ?" You either simply waste nuclear capacity that you've paid and waited years for to be built - or you need forms of storage to make use of it. Both Nuclear and Renewables really want storage, they will compete for it.
If you can only make use of 60% of a nuclear plants capacity, you're price per unit is 100/60 more than the 'base-load' ideal that it was sold for. And another thing future nuclear plants will have to run alongside - is more and more renewable supply since renewables are cheaper and faster to build. We will have a situation where almost all demand is met by renewable supply eventually, and before that situation the demand left nuclear will decrease from 70,60,50,40,30...% - that's even without storage. How many decades do you expect it will take before those plants built with contracts to run for half a century or more, become pointlessly uneconomic ? |
|
Still better to have too much power than not enough... Especially if eg. Russia decides to close the gas pipe, or if americans decide to "bring democracy" to another middle eastern state and that disrupta oil delivery.
We've sidetracked nuclear for decades now... The best time was decades ago, and the second vest time to build some new ones is now.