corytheidiot

corytheidiot t1_iu9ttt6 wrote

I don't mean sit idle in the short term. Keep telling renewables as much as possible.

That is why I was conveying my thoughts by stating mid term and long term.

For renewables to replace base load (coal plants and nuclear plants) we have to build the infrasture for energy storage. We absolutely should be doing that now. Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.

1

corytheidiot t1_iu92tdv wrote

I am curious myself. My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation. Then you throw in renewable with storage to replace peaker plants. This being for the mid term.

Long term would be increasing renewables and expanding storage systems, hopefully, to the point that you could idle the nuclear plants with the end goal of total phase out. (If deemed feasible at the time.)

These are just my thoughts using tech available today, possibly with some expected iterative improvements. So, nothing as revolutionary as nuclear fusion.

1