• BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why not both ?

    I don’t think I’ve seen any long term scenario with only nuclear and no solar energy.

    On the other hand adding a bit of nuclear in the mix can really help to reduce the amount of solar panel needed.

    The simulation done for France show that 13% of nuclear in the grid can roughly divide by almost two the amount of solar, batteries and thermal power station needed compared to a 100% renewables energies simulation.

    https://rte-futursenergetiques2050.com/panorama/scenarios

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The amount of Batterie and Solar between M0 (100% renewable) and M23 (87 % renewable and 13 % nuclear with a Fokus on solar over Wind) is almost the same tough.

      Where do you see a dividig by two?