And yet you compared wind to nuclear.The substantial contribution from wind and solar saves us having to import vast amounts of gas.
The only people this disappoints are Putin and Salman
And yet you compared wind to nuclear.The substantial contribution from wind and solar saves us having to import vast amounts of gas.
The only people this disappoints are Putin and Salman
Selling cheap as we have too much and buying at a high price as demand is high. That is not a profit.We will be ABLE to sell excess energy that we don't need.
Thus making a profit.
And you don't like that
Depends on what you want, and how connected we will be. France for example have historically had about 70% (from memory).What sort of nuclear baseload do you think we would need? Presumably more than the historic peak of 25% or the current 16%?
Coal is not good for balancing the rid, as its more a baseload supply. Nuclear generally replaces coal.We do need dispatchable power to cover gaps in wind. Right now that is gas and in dire cases potentially coal. Managing the decline of Gas so we still have backup capacity of some form is going to be interesting.
Increased nuclear penetration would not require storage, as its generally designed for baseload supply. See France.Interestingly increased nuclear power would also require additional battery or pumped hydro to make use of the otherwise wasted power overnight.
Already addressed.Nukes.
The most expensive energy source.
And yet you compared wind to nuclear.
Selling cheap as we have too much
Tell that to DenmarkHaving insufficient and paying for additional expensive gas is worse.
Having excess electricity and being able to sell it is better than not.
Your arguments are very poor.
France exports a huge amount of power in a way you weren't a fan of for wind.Depends on what you want, and how connected we will be. France for example have historically had about 70% (from memory).
Coal is not good for balancing the rid, as its more a baseload supply. Nuclear generally replaces coal.
Increased nuclear penetration would not require storage, as its generally designed for baseload supply. See France.
You can build them to respond to variations, but its more expensive. Other technologies are available.
Not as many see it because they can't get their head around it. A lot of that is down to political types saying my way is the best ect when in practice some sort of balance is always needed. Nuke progress slipped a long time ago now when Toshiba dropped out. PM's before Blare were trying to get them built. It seems even Thatcher had a change of mind. Early on she was encouraged to build one to maintain our domestic capabilities as the work force concerned was ageing. She said no.Already addressed.
Already addressed.