>You reconsider your life choices and hire the Finnish to run your nuclear power plants instead.
The French made Finnish plant or the Moscow made Finnish plant?
It would be a cool party trick if Finland tried building its own nuclear power plants instead of just suing the French for cost overruns.
>It’s not even just the economics that rule out batteries and pumped storage
The economics dont rule them out - not unless you treat the environment as disposable.
They're much more cost effective when paired with solar and wind than nuclear power, they just dont get the subsidies.
>Where are you going to put all that pumped storage?
You might be confusing it with river dams for which the geography is actually scarce. There was actually a paper that identified a truly enormous number of potential sites globally for pumped storage. Google can easily find it for you if you have an ounce of curiosity about this.
>Where are you going to get all the batteries you need?
Make them? Did you think theyd fall out of the sky?
>The jury is still out on syngas
Syngas only makes economic sense once natural gas is banned/made cost prohibitive and solar+wind are regularly overproducing what can be otherwise stored or used.
It'd still be cheaper to only use syngas made with solar and wind than to use nuclear energy just coz nuclear energy is that absurdly, fantastically, stupidly expensive.
>Why on earth would you run a nuclear power plant as a peaker? That’s inefficient and wasteful.
You wouldnt it's even more economically hemmoraging than using it for baseload but some people think it's a substitute for natural gas because technically it can peak.
Nuclear almost always pairs itself with natgas for peaking just like solar and wind currently do during dark, windless days.
>This seems to be a wonderful idea, as long as you assume nobody lives above the 60th parallel
A) Not many do live up there and B) there is NO shortage of available wind and hydro power options up there.
So I guess you admit it is a wonderful idea.
Of all of your critiques this is the oddest.
>don’t mind on relying on CO2 producing power sources.
Did you read the link I posted at the top? It was written before you responded to me but it was meant for you.
The straw man I referred to in that post was the one you just made.
The French made Finnish plant or the Moscow made Finnish plant?
It would be a cool party trick if Finland tried building its own nuclear power plants instead of just suing the French for cost overruns.
>It’s not even just the economics that rule out batteries and pumped storage
The economics dont rule them out - not unless you treat the environment as disposable.
They're much more cost effective when paired with solar and wind than nuclear power, they just dont get the subsidies.
>Where are you going to put all that pumped storage?
You might be confusing it with river dams for which the geography is actually scarce. There was actually a paper that identified a truly enormous number of potential sites globally for pumped storage. Google can easily find it for you if you have an ounce of curiosity about this.
>Where are you going to get all the batteries you need?
Make them? Did you think theyd fall out of the sky?
>The jury is still out on syngas
Syngas only makes economic sense once natural gas is banned/made cost prohibitive and solar+wind are regularly overproducing what can be otherwise stored or used.
It'd still be cheaper to only use syngas made with solar and wind than to use nuclear energy just coz nuclear energy is that absurdly, fantastically, stupidly expensive.
>Why on earth would you run a nuclear power plant as a peaker? That’s inefficient and wasteful.
You wouldnt it's even more economically hemmoraging than using it for baseload but some people think it's a substitute for natural gas because technically it can peak.
Nuclear almost always pairs itself with natgas for peaking just like solar and wind currently do during dark, windless days.
>This seems to be a wonderful idea, as long as you assume nobody lives above the 60th parallel
A) Not many do live up there and B) there is NO shortage of available wind and hydro power options up there.
So I guess you admit it is a wonderful idea.
Of all of your critiques this is the oddest.
>don’t mind on relying on CO2 producing power sources.
Did you read the link I posted at the top? It was written before you responded to me but it was meant for you.
The straw man I referred to in that post was the one you just made.