Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.

▲

fundatus 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Base load is a concept of the past, grids around the world are being redesigned to be flexible to reap zero-production-costs renewable energy. Nuclear (which is impossible to run economically as a flexible asset) simply does not fit into that new world anymore.

	▲	yellowapple a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It'd be way easier to build a few nuclear plants than it would be to build an equivalent constant energy source from solar+wind and batteries. The nuclear plants would also consume far less land area.
	▲	kulahan 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Damn, so we’re left with nothing, because nuclear is by far the most viable moving forward.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You need solar and batteries for peak loads, not just solar

In many places in the world, peak load does not occur during daylight hours, especially during winter

And yes, further north the days are longer but the solar capture efficiency is also much lower

	▲	yellowapple a day ago \| parent [-]
		True. I'm biased by living in a place where the peak load does happen during daylight hours (because that's when you need to run the A/C) and where heating usually happens via gas. Electric heating would indeed shift that dynamic (though municipal water heating would shift it the other way).

▲

robotnikman 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This right here. It's not one or the other, its a diverse combination of all of them that makes for the best results.