We need a new grid that integrates renewables and nuclear or natural gas.
We really don't.
You
cannot build a grid based
only on intermittent sources with low capacity factor.
You
can build a grid based only on non-intermittent sources with high capacity factor.
You could build a grid based on both, or on intermittent sources plus the storage to smooth out supply, but doing so is either
far more expensive than building one based only on non-intermittent sources with high capacity factor, and offers no benefits whatsoever over such a grid (if gas is not a big player); Or it fails to achieve the objective of eliminating operational carbon dioxide emissions (if burning gas is used, rather than storage).
Wind and solar have their place; That place is off-grid, where the
cost of electricity is of secondary concern to the
availability of electricity at all.
A mixed grid is just as good as a nuclear only grid, but far more expensive. Why the fuck would you want that option? It won't make the hippies happy, nor the businessmen, nor the consumers. Is the idea that if
everyone hates it, it must be a good plan?
The environmentally viable choices are nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar.
The economically viable choices are coal, gas, and nuclear (plus hydro and geothermal in specific locations).
From a health and safety perspective, the best choices are wind, nuclear, and solar.
There is only one technology that appears in all three lists.
Off-grid, further options that become economically viable are oil, solar+battery, and wind+battery; These are only viable where it is more expensive to have no electricity at all, or to connect to a grid, than it is to use these technologies.
You can add solar and/or wind to any grid, but doing so adds cost, which is only viable if it offsets a larger cost elsewhere - in simple terms, wind and/or solar can offset
fuel costs for other generation technologies. So they help where fuel costs and/or environmental costs are significant, ie where your other generation is from oil, gas, or coal. On a grid without fossil fuels, wind and solar are a massive waste of money, and a needless use of resources. The cost of fuel for nuclear fission plants is an utterly trivial fraction of the total cost of the plant; Whereas fuel is by far the dominant cost for fossil fuel generation. Obviously fuel cost for wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal is approximately zero.
All of the above economic analysis is carefully hidden from consumers by government subsidies; We pay not only through our utility bills, but also through taxation, making a direct comparison of costs (deliberately) difficult*, and through price guarantee deals - grids are often required by law to pay for electricity from specified generators at no less than a minimum price, regardless of the actual prevailing market price, leading to other generators seeing
negative wholesale prices - a cost to their businesses which is necessarily passed on to consumers via even greater utility bill prices. This is why the recent proliferation of wind and solar has not only failed to lower prices (as many naïvely expect from looking at fuel cost alone), but has actually seen prices soar.
The only economically viable ultra-low carbon emissions option is a nuclear and/or hydro dominated grid. All other options either lead to significant price increases (possibly hidden in taxation); Or to significant carbon dioxide emissions; Or to significant disruptions in supply (ie frequent blackouts); Or to two or more of those three undesirable things.
* For example, my rooftop PV system gives me an ROI of about three years, but that is because my investment is less than half of the actual cost - the rest is bourne by the taxpayer. The inverter (about half the total cost) has an expected life of five to ten years; the panels maybe twice that. And the system doesn't and can't eliminate my consumption of power from the grid - to do so would require a battery, that has an ROI of about ten years, and an expected life of five to ten years, with subsidy. Absent the taxpayer contribution, the battery ROI would be twice it's lifespan, so clearly unviable. Even with the subsidy, I estimate it to be of insufficent benefit to offset the various risks, not least of which is safety - storage of energy is inherently dangerous, and having a battery strapped to your home is not notably more sensible than having a stack of jerry cans full of gasoline stored in your basement.
