It's been repeatedly demonstrated that the nuclear options (apart from all its other charms) is waaaaaaay too expensive and too slow to implement to serve as a useful escape from further global warming. Big-money investors moved on many years ago.
The response should be both/and, followed by "how do we store lots of energy in water/compressed air/car batteries/chemical tanks", or "how do we level our demand by adaptively controlling large electrical loads"?
Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.--"Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time." Journal of Power Sources, 1 March 2013.
« Older Erected just two years ago a Spanish Monument to t... | "Italy is in crisis. I think t... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt