|
|
|
|
|
by AnthonyMouse
656 days ago
|
|
You're using the instantaneous numbers, which matters for the peak (because if you hit 48 GW for just one hour you still have to meet the demand) but not the trough (because having overcapacity for a negligible number of hours a year is fine). The real base demand number for California is ~24 GW: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 Which is a pretty sizable fraction of 48 (not that 16 wasn't). > The other option would be having more nuclear plants and turning them off for large parts of the year. Nobody is going to do this. It doesn't make sense to build entirely nuclear plants. It does make sense to build some more than we have now. |
|
Either way, solving a 24 GW or 35 GW on top of ~20 GW something base is about as easy. Nuclear simply does not fit modern grids.
> Nobody is going to do this. It doesn't make sense to build entirely nuclear plants. It does make sense to build some more than we have now.
Exactly. Which is why nuclear power does not fit modern grids, because they will be required to shut down. As is seen time and time again in Europe when no one wants their expensive energy.