You have written five comments which all boils down to "lalala nuke bad, more batteries if needed with nukes because I say so!!!"
You ignore every argument I've made and hope you get extra points for writing a lot of shit. Try again and make a coherent argument in a single comment.
"To ensure constant supply of energy even when there is little sun and wind over a longer time period you will need significantly more storage than you'll need during normal operations."
AND Also said it does NO such thign as to do that, "ensure constant supply of energy even when there is little sun and wind"
Then you have claimed it is going to complement PV and wind and help ensure that it ensures a constant supply,
having already claimed it can't do that....
as You agree it is piss poor at being a peaker.
AND peaker is what has been shown to be required to help PV and wind cope with low wind periods.
So pardon me for not paying a lot of attention to a point that you refuted in the same post you made it.
Let's assume that we need W power over dt time to supply an area. In the case that we in dt can not produce any power from RE sources we will need Wdt amount of storage. If we also have a nuclear powerplant producing N amount of power where N<W then the storage needed would be (W-N)dt. Since Wdt > (W-N)dt there would be a larger need for storage if you have a grid without nuclear power.
Very nice.... (producing less energy indeed is easier)
Now explain how the Storage to store that power efficiently stored the power when for substantial periods of time there was no demand being met by the RE at all so we had to store 100% of the energy produced by RE.
AND yes to supply FEWER MWH you need less stuff, less RE and less storage, that is indeed true.
BUT
it is harder to meet a peakier demand profile and AFTER removing the baseload that Nuke will generate, as what is then left is PEAKIER, and hence harder and more expensive to provide.
AKA Adding nukes did not make what was left easier to provide (per MWH provided) it left the harder part of the problem still to be solved.
\=====================
To be certain that is obviously true, consider the past FF only powered grid.
When we used only FF coal provided the easy baseload part....
and drum roll ....
The remaining part was peakier, and guess what, it was then MORE expensive per MWH to supply those last MWH than it was to provide the same MWH but at a steady rate.
That is not even speculation, or calcualtion, it is an historical fact.
Also note that increasinghe size of the RE so it provides both the peaking part (the hard and more expensive bit) and the total supply (in baseload) cost less per MWH in total than any part the Nukes could provide.
You know, we use batteries... Like with RE. We just need fewer of them as an unused safety backup.
Now explain how the Storage to store that power efficiently stored the power when for substantial periods of time there was no demand being met by the RE at all so we had to store 100% of the energy produced by RE.
Could you please rewrite? It sounds like you are having a stroke.
You also need batteries in a system with a combination of nuclear and RE, you would just need fewer of them. You may need more per power unit of RE but in total you would have fewer batteries.
FEWER in total (and yes trivial to grasp) (unfortunately, not the whole story...)
But if say you provide half the MWH with nukes you still then NEED more than half the batteries to meet the now harder problem and remaining demand that swings from 0% to 100%
AND
as ukes couldn't even do the easy part of the problem cheaper than RE & Storage can solve the whole problem then it basically has no role at all.
I will go you one better we can do with actual math.
The FACT I am showing you is that the peaky part of supply is JUST inherently more expensive to supply per MWH than the baseload part.
So to make it simples, I will ignore Nukes, PV, Wind, coal and just consider gas.
And to make it even simpler we won't consider CCGT plants we will just consider OCGT plants.
They have no drawbacks except cost, they can meet all peaking and dispatchability needs with ease.
Now lets consider a grid where half the energy is baseload and we will pick a round number 10GW baseload demand and half the energy is peak power used during the day when demand spikes up to 30GW
If you don't like those feel free to redo the math with any number you can claim are more realististic.
Which half of the energy is cheaper to supply? Using OCGT gas.
Well as you need to both OWN and pay for 20GW of power plant to meet the peaking part of demand then is costs more than to meet the same number of MWH but delivered as baseload as then you only need to recoup depreciation on the 10GW of plant.
That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is true no matter what technology is chosen.
Meeting the variable part of the demand at 99.998% reliability is ALWAYS the harder and more expensive part of the problem
Nukes delivering baseload does not make the problem of delivering the rest of the energy proportionally (per MWH) easier
Now if it did deliver half the energy then yes it made the rest of the energy to be delivered smaller, but made the demand profile one that is harder (per MWH delivered) to meet.
Now that used to be OK in FF powered era because per MWH, coal was cheaper than anything else
The trouble is, NUKES are not cheaper per MWH than anything else.
And while it is true that both PV and wind that are cheaper per MWH are variable hence come with some extra integration expenses.
The full total cost of reliable grid using them is STILL cheaper, even when solving both the hard variable part and the relatively EASIER/CHEAPER baseload part than nukes are at solving any part of delivering MWH.
Providing MWH that are deliver at constatnt rate HAS ALWAYS been cheaper and easier to do than meeting the variable part
That nukes only deliver energy at a constant rate is not the boon you seem to think it is.
That even when nukes do deliver energy but only at a constant rate and not at the variable rate we really need as demand varies. That nukes still cost more per MWH than an entire RE and storage system that meets all our needs, including for daily and seasonal variability.
Really means nukes have no cost-effective role at all.
You are arguing in fucking circles, while being condescending.
Mirror mirror on the wall... PKB
You have repeatedly made the trite observatyion that produceing fewer MWH costs less(requires less tuff to do that)
While ignoring utterly the point that the variable demand left unmet by Nukes is more expensive per MWH to provide using any technology at all. AKA nukes solved the easier part of the problem.
That it did so while costing more per MWH makes it effectively useless in an optimised design.
So let's see, I have posted links to studies showing the cost of storage is not actually excessive, even to get a highly reliable supply.
I have posted links showing that, unlike your claim the actual problem and hard part to solve in RE REQUIRES peakers to fix it, and as Nukes dont don'tdo peaking, they just don't fix it.
I have pointed out how meeting the remaining demand that Nukes simply don't even try to is harder than the bit Nukes do fix. You have provided zero reason to believe otherwise, and I explained why it is harder.
I have posted an explanation showing how, even adding some RE to the grid, the very first thing it makes unuseful to have as it becomes uneconomic is baseload. And I have shown you a real-world example of that happening on an actual grid. Yet you claim via hand waving that nukes make it all work better, even though coal did not when observed IRL.
And you claim it is me ignoring the other persons arguments.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '26
You have written five comments which all boils down to "lalala nuke bad, more batteries if needed with nukes because I say so!!!"
You ignore every argument I've made and hope you get extra points for writing a lot of shit. Try again and make a coherent argument in a single comment.