freediver wrote on Oct 10
th, 2026 at 8:28pm:
But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote:
Quote:
Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective.
Why didn't you complete what it said?
lee wrote on Oct 10
th, 2026 at 8:16pm:
pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially.
Or do you only want four hours of battery?
freediver wrote on Oct 10
th, 2026 at 8:28pm:
Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper.
The fact that in only covers 80-90% shows that it isn't viable, even on average. AT ALL.

Just go nuclear. No need for intermittent, weather dependant power at all.
What happens under a Dunkelflaute? Freeze in the dark?
Your logic here would mean that nothing is viable. 80 - 90% is really good I doubt what ever is used will meet that standard.
If we can reduce the dirty fuels by 90% I would think it would be a good result.