| > The baseload myth again. Can we please just stop it? We'll stop it the moment it stops being reality. > Yes we need overcapacity or storage, Yes, yes we do. And I've yet to see anyone calculate how much we need of that overcapacity. When there's no sun, the base load of solar is zero. When there's no wind, the base load of wind is zero. Worse than that is that it's not an either/or situation. It's not an "either 100% or 0%". It's any value in between. If your wind farm is generating just 20%, it's almost as bad as 0%. So, you need to have overcapacity for solar (to compensate for no wind). And and overcapacity for wind (to compensate for no solar). And an overcapacity of batteries to compensate for both. And literally no one is talking about this, and just brushes this aside with "yeah no it's fine". > This summer France had 40%-100% (the numbers differ I saw 40% in writing but 100% on a French TV channel) of their nuclear power plants down due to heat and mainteance. Key word: maintenance. This is something you can plan well beforehand (unlike the drops in wind and solar). Will there be screwups in planning? Yes. Nuclear reactors being down due to heat is not too dissimilar to a hypothetical 10GW battery storage melting from the same heat > > - neither solar nor wind can be load-following > Yes and neither can nuclear in any economically feasible way. I don't think you understand what load following means > it is much cheaper to build double the amount of renewables than to use nuclear running on some fraction of it's capacity. Double amount compared to what? Compared to what we have now or compared to the number required to cover all our rising energy needs? |