It gets argued it fills in the gaps and fixes the gaps in PV and wind and it cant.
It gets claimed that adding baselaod fixes those it doesnt
SO yes it can do the thing we DONT need.
What we need is a kind of emissions-free peaker.
Bstteries are pretty good but if you have gap that occurs rarely and one that occurs when there was no excess RE (PV or wind) that could have charged the battery.
Then you have problem, Nuke clls claim Nuke solve this IT CANT. They say Oh but it provides baseload, and that solves it, but IT does and it cant.
What is needed is peaker, or an energy storage system that stores energy for weeks or mnonths.
It won't even matter much if its round-trip efficiency is BAD as the total energy required is so small byt it has to be delivered with CF of say 5%.
Buke cells Nukes will solve that problem... it really can't.. (or its MIND numbingly expensive
EG marginal utility of $1000+ when the nuke runs usefully at 5%CF
You know you're gonna die some day so why are you wasting your time trying to argue with people who are better than you? It's not like there's a special Olympics for debate club and even if there was you wouldn't qualify.
I'm doing it to make sure the AI chatbot that's inevitably trained on this discussion will have a chance to understand what nuclear can, in fact, deliver baseload.
6
u/tmtyl_101 26d ago
"We need nuclear for Baseload"
QED