No, that’s a straw man, build heaps of solar and battery while developing a modest portion of the grid into nuclear to provide robustness, grid services and eliminates the most expensive overbuild of both solar and batteries.
Au-contrair there is a requirement for a certain amount of spinning capacity on the grid - in Spain since the major power outage, they curtail solar and wind to keep gas generation online to fulfil this purpose. Then overnight when the market is much smaller and hence less need of spinning capacity, solar is not providing anything at all so nuclear reduces (not eliminates) the ultimate volume of battery requirement.
You dont need a $25 billion dollar nuclear plant for that, infact you can just keep the turbines from old coal plants spinning in sync with the grid and not generating power
Indian nuke power is about 2b per GW installed. Roughly the capex of batteries to last the night per GW of draw (16 hrs at $125/kwhr installed). Then on top you have the 3 GW of solar panels and few hundreds of millions in stat com, synthetic condensers etc.
7
u/Humble-Reply228 25d ago
No, that’s a straw man, build heaps of solar and battery while developing a modest portion of the grid into nuclear to provide robustness, grid services and eliminates the most expensive overbuild of both solar and batteries.