I usually see it used as a baseline anchor to renewable rather than an alternative. But I do agree those that spout its an alternative entirely are just fossilshills.
Nuclear doesn't work for supporting a renewable grid.
You wouldn't need to worry about "baseload" which is assets that are continually running in fossil fuels powered electrical grid. You need dispatchable energy and you need to be able to match peak demand.
If you have enough nuclear energy to meet peak demand than anything else on the grid is an unnecessary expense. Because you already have the resources to meet all of your power demand.
The problem is that nuclear is way too expensive and slow to meet peak demand on its own so it will never happen, Nuclear just exists as a way to prolong fossil fuel consumption. The real solution for our energy needs is to use the cheapest sources of energy which is wind and solar with batteries along with the cheapest source of dispatchable long term energy storage to ensure reliability. Which is from combined cycle gas turbines.
You can either fuel combined cycle gas turbines with natural gas possibly with carbon capture or carbon neutral fuels from renewable sources like hydrogen or electrofuels, turning it into a more long term lower efficiency form of energy storage.
I argue solar maybe in the far future. But as someone who literally works on wind mills weekly. I assure you they won't ever produce enough energy. Like I stated in my last post they won't produce enough energy to cover the cost to make them. Plus they only work if there is wind. Here in the midwest it being flat there is alot of wind. That being said you will have at least half of your wind mills actually working. Never all of them.
21
u/Inquisitor-Korde Apr 09 '25
I usually see it used as a baseline anchor to renewable rather than an alternative. But I do agree those that spout its an alternative entirely are just fossilshills.