[leymed]

You’re correct that the system is statistical, and it’s planned accordingly. However, we cannot omit the fact that it’s the running turbine that responds faster to the unpredictable nature of the grid. The backbone of the grid, aka the baseline plants, are extremely responsive to unpredictable nature of the grid at a greater scale, with enough amount of safety margins to bring into service under unusual circumstances. I really don’t see, at least what we have in hand rn, that happening with solar or wind. Without strong baseline you’d experience supply demand imbalance, in engineering terms frequency decay, voltage collapse.

[ViewTrick1002]

Which means nuclear is the worst companion imaginable. Since nuclear power needs to run at 100% 24/7 to only make an enormous loss.

Dispatchable nuclear power to complement renewables has never made sense.

[Herz]

It's amazing how every comment you make is the most boring ideological propaganda

[ViewTrick1002]

Stating facts is “ideological propaganda”?

Work with the world, not against it.

[dgacmu]

Your comments are coming across as lacking nuance ("nuclear is the worst possible...", for example).

Nuclear has a place depending on how you weigh specific factors in your grid design. It's zero carbon. It's hideously expensive, particularly in capex. It's generally quite reliable and its availability is mostly uncorrelated with that of solar and wind. it's modestly dispatchable - you can scale down to 60% or so in many designs. (A little lower but let's be conservative).

If you place high weight on zero carbon, nuclear is an (expensive) way to get through the night. It can work pretty well in a grid mix if your grid is large enough that the loss of one nuclear plant isn't a really big chunk of your power supply (since, obviously, you want enough redundancy to handle a certain fraction of generation failures at peak load).

Are solar+wind+batteries on a much better trajectory? Yes. But batteries are not there _yet_ for 24x7, though I think we all hope they will be in the reasonably near future.

[Herz]

He does not care about these arguments, what matters is that there is no room for nuclear power.

In a past discussion I talked to him about how one of the important things to do was to diversify, as China has a lot of influence on the whole renewable sector (solar, batteries, etc.)

Needless to say, that's not a problem for him. For him to hope that batteries are the future is already a sure thing, without the slightest doubt.

[ViewTrick1002]

Hideously expensive and any plant announced today will not be online in time to have any material effect on our fight against climate change.

Which means funding diverted from renewables to nuclear will prolong our fight against climate change.

[Herz]

> Hideously expensive and any plant announced today will not be online in time to have any material effect on our fight against climate change

False, we have 26 years to decarbonize, all the time it takes to build any number of nuclear power plants in any country in the world.

> Which means funding diverted from renewables to nuclear will prolong our fight against climate change.

We can say the same thing about renewables. Then come and tell me you are not ideological... Where is the mathematical certainty that batteries at scale will be available everywhere and for everyone by 2050? If you come from the future, prove it to me and I will agree with you.

[Herz]

These are lies you tell yourself and how you want people to see you. In a past discussion, you concluded by saying that those who support nuclear energy also support fossil fuels.

These are your ideological premises; you don't care about creating a better world, nor are you interested in facts and problems. You only care about your vision of things and making it prevail over others.

There's no need to know anything else to make any of your comments irrelevant. It's no coincidence that you are in every nuclear discussion, asserting how much you are against it.

[ViewTrick1002]

Given how the rightwing conservative politics have shifted from pure climate change denial to harping nuclear as the non-solution to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels the link is clear.

[ehvatum]

Nuclear power derives its energy from the binding energy of ultra-heavy atomic nuclei, not fossil fuels. This energy can then be used to power electric cars, avoiding fossil fuel consumption. Furthermore, unlike wind and solar energy, nuclear power generation is not tied to the vagaries of weather, meaning that it doesn’t require burning millions of cubic meters of natural gas every overcast, calm day. For this reason, Russia historically was the largest single benefactor of Germany’s green euphoria: it prolongs fossil fuel reliance.

So often, emotional thinking leads to conclusions that are opposed to reality. You really have to watch out for it, if you want good results.