What happens in days where renewables can't produce enough energy? Or the evenings where we don't have enough batteries (all evenings so far and for the next decade at least)? You can call it base load or whatever you want, but that energy is coming either from hydro, nuclear or a carbon-based source. And those carbons are hard to come by these days, so even if nuclear power is expensive, at least it is reliable.
It takes a decade at least for any new nuclear starting today to come online in the west. In that decade you’ve built an awful lot of batteries for the same amount of money.
No one wants to bet $10s of billions of nuke capex against the relentless progress of batteries and other tech over the next 10 years, and then the 30+ years of plant operations. It’s a suckers bet , so the only ones who can take it are nation states.
given that we dont have nukes, and we wont for 10 years even if we started today, and we arent going to start them because theyre economic disasters...
in the medium term its going to be batteries + solar/wind + gas backups for rare weather events. If we get the total annual use of gas down to a very achievable 10% we're still massively winning climate wise. California is getting there, 45% gas in 2022, 25% gas in 2025, and adding batteries at massively increasing rate. Full coverage of an average night is within sight, using gas just for shortfalls.
We can hopefully transition the last peaking gas backup usage to something else in the long term (hydrogen? SMRs if they ever exist?) but it isnt _that_ important in the grand arc of saving the climate.
So now the discussion is not about whether base load is a thing or not, it is that you firmly believe that batteries are the answer to everything.
First it should be said that this thread is primarily about decomissioning existing nuclear power plants. It makes enormous sense to keep operating those plants until we have a world like the one you describe, regardless of how much newer plants would cost.
But more importantly, your assumptions about the future are very optimistic. I'm sure the Germans also thought they were being very smart when they decided that nuke capex was not worth it because gas was so cheap and easily available, and then now we are finding out that this decision crippled their economy because it caused a dependency. In my opinion throwing all your chips into a technology that requires materials and production capacity you don't have, and in some cases doesn't even exist yet, is a real sucker's bet. All your rosy scenarios would fall apart in one second if China decides to stop selling batteries to you.
> So now the discussion is not about whether base load is a thing or not, it is that you firmly believe that batteries are the answer to everything.
Nope, im still talking about the economics of base load. It exists insofar as there is base load _demand_, aka the minimum demand point the grid has. Base load _supply_ is not a thing - there is no rule of nature or economics that says you have to match that minimum demand with static allocation of unvarying power sources like slow thermal (coal, nukes). That worked for awhile as an economic optimization, but now on grids with variable sources like wind, solar, batteries, it doesnt work. If your plant has to run at 100% at all times to be profitable (nukes), your economic model is now broken.
> First it should be said that this thread is primarily about decomissioning existing nuclear power plants. It makes enormous sense to keep operating those plants until we have a world like the one you describe, regardless of how much newer plants would cost.
Yep, I have absolutely no objections keeping existing plants running, thats a smart thing to do. Its building new ones that doesn't make economic sense anymore.
> All your rosy scenarios would fall apart in one second if China decides to stop selling batteries to you.
true, but its easier to build a homegrown battery manufacturing industry than it is a nuclear industry.
