|
|
|
|
|
by ajross
1347 days ago
|
|
That's simply not true, because wind output never goes to zero across the whole grid. Even assuming the pessimal case[1], wind needs to drop below 5.5% (1/18th) of its average capacity before nuclear even reaches break-even! What fraction of the time is whole-grid-amortized wind capacity running at 5% of average? Has that ever even happened? I don't have numbers, but I'm willing to bet that this has never actually happened. What you've done is try to counter my overwhelming quantitative argument with a qualitative hedge ("but storage"). Please, (please!) look up the numbers here. Nuclear is a borderline scandal. If it was some other federal subsidy of an industry you disliked, you'd almost certainly call it fraud. [1] i.e. no use of gas peaker plants, legacy nuclear, solar, pumped hydro, batteries, etc... Literally trying to run the whole grid on wind and wind alone. |
|