It’s much more expensive when considering lifetime costs, uranium will run out eventually, and because it can’t react quickly to changing demand it meshes horribly with renewables. If we can build an excess of renewables and pair them with storage solutions, what do we need nuclear for?
Renewables by and large are inverter driven, which is always chasing a desired output. When there are fluctuations on the network, they don’t react quickly enough to the voltage and frequency changes, and this can lead to the system tripping out causing extensive issues (see: the UK blackout in 2019). There are ways of dealing with this, but they’re far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.
There’s also the simple fact that having diversity of supply covers all sorts of potential issues. When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack. And our demand in general is only going up, so we pretty much need as much of everything as we can get.
However, there are plenty of Future Energy Scenarios reports that basically say “we should avoid nuclear for the time being and focus on installing as much renewables as possible, to get to Net Zero as quickly as possible”.
There are ways of dealing with this, but they’re far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.
Spending more than 40 billion pounds over one and a half decades to build two energy storage flywheels that also produces radioactive waste is probably the most absurd undertaking conceivable to man.
When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack.
But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.
Yes I was referring to rotating stabilisers, however they have their own risks. Different manufacturers have different solutions, but basically the concern is that if they fall off their bearings you could have a massive and fast spinning disk rolling across the countryside demolishing everything in its path. This isn’t a concern on large cruise ships or aircraft carriers, where the technology was initially developed.
Also, you have more than one turbine per reactor.
But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Why are you being argumentative?
It’s much more expensive when considering lifetime costs, uranium will run out eventually, and because it can’t react quickly to changing demand it meshes horribly with renewables. If we can build an excess of renewables and pair them with storage solutions, what do we need nuclear for?
Renewables by and large are inverter driven, which is always chasing a desired output. When there are fluctuations on the network, they don’t react quickly enough to the voltage and frequency changes, and this can lead to the system tripping out causing extensive issues (see: the UK blackout in 2019). There are ways of dealing with this, but they’re far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.
There’s also the simple fact that having diversity of supply covers all sorts of potential issues. When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack. And our demand in general is only going up, so we pretty much need as much of everything as we can get.
However, there are plenty of Future Energy Scenarios reports that basically say “we should avoid nuclear for the time being and focus on installing as much renewables as possible, to get to Net Zero as quickly as possible”.
Spending more than 40 billion pounds over one and a half decades to build two energy storage flywheels that also produces radioactive waste is probably the most absurd undertaking conceivable to man.
But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.
Yes I was referring to rotating stabilisers, however they have their own risks. Different manufacturers have different solutions, but basically the concern is that if they fall off their bearings you could have a massive and fast spinning disk rolling across the countryside demolishing everything in its path. This isn’t a concern on large cruise ships or aircraft carriers, where the technology was initially developed.
Also, you have more than one turbine per reactor.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Why are you being argumentative?