I think your point about being more clear about the comparison between current generators and the costs in 2050 was fair and I tweaked the piece to reflect that
I am a retired electrical engineer and senior reactor operator so I personally enjoy the technical nuts and bolts of anything related to the greatest machine ever built, the US electrical grid. I believe that building and maintaining an all WWSB supply is not affordable, practical or achievable.
An intermittent weather dependent power supply is not going to result in a reliable supply of electricity on a large grid like the US. Smaller countries with a bountiful hydro system acting as base load with WSB supplementing is feasible and affordable.
I agree. I think that construction of new nuclear units could perform the same function as hydropower, and also that there is the potential for lots of new hydropower to be constructed in the US. Not sure that either can happen politically, however,
I also would say that the Energy Bad Boys' study proves your point. No one is ever going to construct 200,000 MW of wind and solar to serve 57,000 MW of peak load
I’m all in on new nuclear but lots of new hydro? I believe a majority of the big dams have already been built. Where do you think we can get a lot more hydro? Repowering existing units?
I think your point about being more clear about the comparison between current generators and the costs in 2050 was fair and I tweaked the piece to reflect that
I am enjoying these posts and learning from each one. Thank you!
I am a retired electrical engineer and senior reactor operator so I personally enjoy the technical nuts and bolts of anything related to the greatest machine ever built, the US electrical grid. I believe that building and maintaining an all WWSB supply is not affordable, practical or achievable.
An intermittent weather dependent power supply is not going to result in a reliable supply of electricity on a large grid like the US. Smaller countries with a bountiful hydro system acting as base load with WSB supplementing is feasible and affordable.
I agree. I think that construction of new nuclear units could perform the same function as hydropower, and also that there is the potential for lots of new hydropower to be constructed in the US. Not sure that either can happen politically, however,
I also would say that the Energy Bad Boys' study proves your point. No one is ever going to construct 200,000 MW of wind and solar to serve 57,000 MW of peak load
I’m all in on new nuclear but lots of new hydro? I believe a majority of the big dams have already been built. Where do you think we can get a lot more hydro? Repowering existing units?