Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: The 30-year itch America’s nuclear industry struggles to get off the floor [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)6. So you believe in "The Baseload Myth"?
1. variable renewable sources of electricity (windpower and photovoltaics) can provide little or no reliable electricity because they are not baseloadable to run all the time;
2. those renewable sources require such enormous amounts of land, hundreds of times more than nuclear power does, that theyre environmentally unacceptable;
3. all options, including nuclear power, are needed to combat climate change; and
4. nuclear powers economics matter little because governments must use it anyway to protect the climate.
2. those renewable sources require such enormous amounts of land, hundreds of times more than nuclear power does, that theyre environmentally unacceptable;
3. all options, including nuclear power, are needed to combat climate change; and
4. nuclear powers economics matter little because governments must use it anyway to protect the climate.
These myths (or falsehoods if you prefer) are promoted by the entrenched energy interests that wish to preserve the present system built around centralized thermal generation.
The grist article lays out for you the basic idea of how two different systems work; centralized thermal and distributed renewables. The article is based on a HUGE body of work around the world that shows without any doubt that your belief in how the energy system operates is not an accurate representation of reality. You are taking some characteristics from individual generators and improperly using that individual generation profile as a model on which to form your beliefs about how the system works.
That leads to false conclusions. These false conclusions are promoted by the interests that control today's energy systems and resources.
Once you explore and incorporate all of the technologies available (not just wind and solar) and look at how they actually work together, you'll find that large scale storage needs are actually only in the range of about 4-5% of total grid capacity. As an example of what you aren't considering, it turns out that a great deal of end use power is well suited to performing the 'load-shifting' role that you see for storage. For example, home heating systems and electric drive transportation are both set to be significant enablers of an all renewable grid. And the thing is, we already buy these systems so the "storage" value is stacked on top of the normal value we assign these products.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The 30-year itch America’s nuclear industry struggles to get off the floor [View all]
kristopher
Apr 2012
OP