So in total, Nuclear is just as reliant on grid inter-connectors as solar/wind to perform optimally.
The difference is that solar/wind are sooooo much cheaper you can now build solar/wind/interconnectors/storage and still come in cheaper than nuclear. No country in the world ever figured out how to build out nuclear power efficiently and in the last ten years the decline in solar/wind/storage costs has been astronomical.
That's why Nuclear is going nowhere. If we were to give storage plants subsidies at a level with what nuclear receives, there wouldn't even be a discussion about this.
If wind doesn't blow over Europe, you can have 15% overall capacity factor.
Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, storage. Plus some nuclear if it is already built. That is what folks are recommending. If new build nuclear can compete, then great. But right now it can't, and models show we can get there without it.
Unclear what you are basing that on. Nuclear energy has by far the highest capacity factor of any energy source and its not even close:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab...
>...The difference is that solar/wind are sooooo much cheaper
The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is higher than nuclear, but that cost doesn't matter?
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...
Modern society is dependent on 100% reliable power. Even that relatively small blackout in Texas caused:
>...At least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly,[3] with some estimates as high as 702 killed as a result of the crisis.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
If we were to rely just on solar and wind, the low capacity factor would likely require massive grid storage. The only large scale grid storage we have at this point is pumped hydro and that isn't scalable. For example, one estimate is that for Germany to rely on solar and wind would require about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is literally 183 times their current capacity.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5...
If making more grid storage was cheap and easy, we would have built it decades ago.
Overbuilding could alleviate some of this, particularly the natural variations in seasonal energy output, but obviously this would be a multiplier to the cost and it won't get more power from solar at night, etc.
As Bill Gates said in an interview: "…They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need...
Gates is investing in 4th gen nuclear and energy storage companies so he is at least putting his money where his mouth is. The goal should be to decarbonize the electrical grid while maintaining the reliability we depend upon.
We don't have storage because we have not needed storage. Now that we are starting to need storage, storage is being built out. It will take time to build out, but the scale will be astonishing because the demand for it is very predictable and stable.
Gates is investing in nukes because it can be very profitable to make them. Not so much, using them. But there will always be pigeons.
I am fully supportive of using whatever technology that gets us to a zero carbon grid as quickly as possible. And right now the most advanced research in this area is suggesting that renewables + storage is our best bet.
