• YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Even if/when we replace fossil fuels with renewables, we still need a solution for surges, and nuclear would fit that very well

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I’m in favor of nuclear, but no. Nuclear can’t handle surges. It takes up to 3 days for a plant to sync to the grid.

      The only power sources that can handle surges are hydro, batteries, and natural gas turbines.

      Then nuclear power is good at is providing baseline power and slowly ramping that up and down to handle seasonal fluctuations, since solar power peaks during summer. Something else is needed to pick up the slack during winter

    • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I thought nuclear was slow to ramp up and down and basically has to operate 24/7, providing a baseload. Batteries otoh are the quickest source to respond to surges from my understanding. Renewables+batteries are have been cheap enough for years that they’re also good for baseload.

    • njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I live in a dry but mountainous area. I’d like to see them pump water uphill with any overpower so we can just use turbines to recapture that energy later. The average american keeps impressing me with their turnip-level intellect to the point where I don’t want them running a carwash, much less a nuclear reactor. There are a lot of IRL Homer Simpsons out there.