And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Removed by mod