• 0 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2024

help-circle

  • You clearly didn’t comprehend what I wrote. Educate yourself on this topic - not from forum arguments, but from TEA and policy papers.

    For one, I said ‘base load’ generation isn’t needed. Your thinking that is is means your thinking on the matter is 10 years out of date. If you insist base load is needed, then gas plants and carbon capture systems are far cheaper and faster to build.

    You don’t care, though, as you aren’t seriously involved in the policy and just want to live in a world where you are right 🤷.


  • Base load is an outdated concept. It is cheaper, by an order of magnitude, to install surplus generation capacity using renewables and build storage to cover periods of reduced production.

    Nuclear reactors actually make terrible ‘base load’ generation anyway, as large swings in output induce thermal cycling stress in their metal components AND the economics of these multi-billion dollar investments depend on running near max output at all times - otherwise the payback time from selling power will extend beyond the useful life of the plant.

    The policy wonks shilling for nuclear are not being honest. The economics for these plants are terrible, they are especially terrible if The Plan ™ is to use nuclear as a transition fuel to be replaced by renewables - as then they won’t even reach break even. To say nothing of the fact that a solar installation in the US takes 6 months, while there have been two reactors under construction in Georgia for a decade…

    50 years ago, nuclear was a great option. Today, it is too expensive, too slow to build, and simply unnecessary with existing storage technologies.

    If y’all were really worried about base load power, you’d be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.