[luizfwolf]

Nuclear is the most clean energy that can be generated on-demand, solar and wind can only generate energy depending on the external conditions.

Batteries until today are not a viable solution.

When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want.

[JohnCClarke]

Providing "base load" is often touted as an advantage of nuclear power plants (NPP) here on HN. The reality is actually the opposite. As the International Atomic Energy Agency says[1]:

"Any unexpected sudden disconnect of the NPP from an otherwise stable electric grid could trigger a severe imbalance between power generation and consumption causing a sudden reduction in grid frequency and voltage. This could even cascade into the collapse of the grid if additional power sources are not connected to the grid in time."

Basically NPPs are designed to SCRAM for all sorts of reasons, then the sudden loss of multiple GW really ruins the grid managers' day. The first paragraphs of [1] make it clear that a large, stable, grid is a pre-requisite for NPPs not a result of NPPs.

[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_e...

[m463]

> When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want.

I think there is an error thinking this way.

It is like saying "everyone must own a pickup truck, because they must be able to move any household appliance or furniture item at any time."

"nobody can drive an electric vehicle because they must be able to drive to the next state at any time."

Honestly, you can have a very reliable electrical grid that is runs on solar/wind/batteries for most of the time.

Batteries enhance the grid, and if there was a period of no wind or no sun, it is quite easy to spin up gas turbines for a day or a month.

[vitiral]

It's not quite the same when failing to meet peak demand means pipes freeze or people die of heat exhaustion. There are areas in the country that are over a hundred degrees at night. It's going to take a lot of solar to cool all those homes.

Could we all live a different way, communally instead of in our own big boxes? It's physically possible but socially impossible. The truth is we'd rather burn the planet to the ground and we will. That's our nature, little use fighting it.

[wcoenen]

> When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want.

Not exactly. It is possible to manage the demand side to some degree.

For example, Octopus Energy in the UK has a "Intelligent Octopus Go" contract which offers much cheaper night rates, in exchange for giving up control over when and at what rate your EV charges. You just tell them what battery percentage you need by what time in the morning. They plan the charging within this constraint and get paid by the grid operator to balance the grid.

Another example are dynamically priced contracts where the prices vary hour by hour based on the day-ahead market prices. I have such a contract and I charge my EV only during the cheapest hours when other demand is low. Sometimes I postpone charging for a day or more because I have sufficient charge for my needs and I expect lower prices later, e.g. based on weather or upcoming weekend.

[ZeroGravitas]

> to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want.

This isn't true. Demand is predictable to some degree on multiple timescales.

But if it was true, why would that help nuclear? It is most suited to the role of producing a set amount of power continuously.

Why are so many people fans of this mythical nuclear power they've invented inside their own head? (or had fed to them)?

It all just seems like lazy, second-hand, anti-renewable propaganda.