Well, you can potentially design them in a way, that you can control the energy output more easily. However, then they will be even less economical than they are now. If you run at lower output, you waste more fuel.

@MattMastodon @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel

The optimum imho is:

1. The bulk of the generation from wind and solar, and nuclear for 15% - 20% base load. Also some Geothermal where cheap but it's potential is small.

2. Grids improved to cover local and intermediate renewable generation, and extended to facilitate import/export.

3. Variable electricity pricing for demand shifting.

The result is vastly reduced need for storage, probably batteries used intelligently in a hierarchy of grid and home, compared to the naïve "just build wind and solar and batteries."

Then add in:

4. A 90% transition from personal cars to free green public transport (#FGPT), taxis, e-bikes, bicycles, and walking.

This all needs no new technology (although for nuclear there are several advances not yet used at scale: molten salt, small, modular, U238, thorium), it needs a fraction of the rare earths, and delivers a huge in reduction steel production courtesy of car recycling.

#Energy #Renewables #ClimateCrisis #Climate #Nuclear

[P.S. Dams damage eco-systems so I'm not in favour of more hydro generation, and pumped hydro storage needs the spare water too.

Biomass not "net zero" and obviously not "zero" which we actually need. It's just more carbon burning plus extra pollution from the agriculture and other products of combustion. It increases land use, and at present the industry is full of corruption with trees being burned sometimes alongside shredded car tyres... and subsidised!]

It can’t be scales up and down following need.

Yes, it runs at full power most of the time. That's what being a "baseline energy source" means.