• zik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s why places that use mostly renewables and no coal or nuclear often have gas fired generation which can start up in the rare cases when it’s needed. These places already exist and do just fine with no nuclear.

      • zik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s in-fill which is only used when needed and it’s reducing every year as more renewable sources are added.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          is only used when needed

          Sure, but it’s still GHG emissions, “only when needed” or not. The whole point we’re making is those gas generators should have been nuclear generators in the first place.

          And we continue building gas and coal power plants. Why? Build nuclear plants instead.

    • Blubton@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This may be true, but I am not convinced that it is any better than nuclear. To start up regeneration quick the gas winning needs to be on a pilot light (dutch source: https://nos.nl/l/2485108). In Groningen there are (according to the same source) 5 places on pilot light that together must produce at least 2.8 billion cubic metres of gas a year. This is quite a lot of fossil fuels, so I would rather have a nuclear power plant than this gas winning (which comes with other disadvantages as well).