Batteries solve that issue Solar plus batteies will likely be cheap enough to do bassload or even load following at a good price very soon Solar is already cheap enough Ideally batteies need to go from the current ~$250/KWh to ideally sub $100/KWh fully installed

@@kaya051285 that's not correct. Batteries output DC and need to be inverted to AC. And cannot provide reactive loading, inherently. You can add electronics to help correct the power factor, to meet the reactive loads, but they are highly inefficient, costly and no product exists above small transmission loads, for localized areas of a grid. Large synchronous generators can provide, and quickly adjust, large reactive power changes. Most of the loads on the grid are inductive, meaning if you don't provide enough VARs, you will brown out the grid. DC generation provides no reactive power. Wind generators are very small and can only provide minimal VAR loading. Batteries also don't change the sources capacity factor. You still need 5 times the capacity for a solar farm to replace a nuke or coal/gas plant. In other words, you would need 5GWe of solar to replace 1Gwe of coal/gas or nuclear power. Additionally, the battery banks that have been built have been plagued with fires and several were destroyed already. Lastly, these are rhe reasons a "clean city" has yet to be developed. A couple of municipalities have looked into it but could not get past the technical hurdles, in an economic way. I would challenge folks who are interested in this topic to familiarize themselves with the power triangle and the differences between real, apparent and reactive power. That topic is absent from most media reports on this topic and it is incredibly relevant.

This used to be a problem but like F1 cars the refuling period has been constantly reduced Now it's approximately 18 months on. Then about 25 days off for refuelling and some maintenance and checks before then again return to running full power for 18 months

@@kaya051285 Thanks for the information. A key power source being down for 25 days every year and a half seems like a big drawback, and quite an asterisk to the claim that it's always on.

@lonecandle5786 you get to choose when you take them offline for refueling The issue with say solar is if you have 20 solar farms. All 20 will be producing zero at night If you have 20 nukes you can keep 19 on constantly by cycling the downtimes so one goes offline as another is going online. You wouldn't get a situation where all 20 are refueled at the same time If you assume 80 week runtime and 4 weeks tefuling. And have 20 reactors. You keep 19 on constantly and one is down constantly for refuling In reality though most nations have low and high seasons. So eg france summer is low demand so youd refuel in the 6 low demand months when being offline is no issue and also when proces are cheaper so thr lost income from being down is less Also you can design a nuke yo run for 3 years non stop. The Canadians have a different type.of.reqctor which can be refuel withiut taking offline. But it's not a big advantage Or rather your idea of.heing down for 3 weeks every 18 months isn't a big downfall Also to note Coal and gas plants Also need maintiannce and down periods. So do wind farms. And solar farms etc

@@lonecandle5786 Eh, to me 95.6% on is close enough to round. Contrast to solar, which should average about 50% or wind, which depends on the weather. Also, traditional energy sources also need maintenance, although I don't know how often or how frequently. If you only have a single reactor it is a big deal. As part of a grid, not as much imho.

Nuclear Power Generation destroys water turning it into tritium. We can't drink tritium water.

Due to nuclear energy and radiation we have global warming from the releases into the environment.

Not as much as china or Russia or South Korea. But more than most other nations