Luciferase, you asked if I would put nuclear & solar/wind on the same grid.
I see no reason not to & isn't that the whole idea ?
So nuclear, which from my reading can be ramped up and down fairly
quickly, perhaps not as fast as gas turbines.
to quote; please explain !

Sure Bazz,

What would be the point of pairing a nuclear reactor, which can already provide dispatchable energy 24/7/365 with something that can't?

Is there such a thing as being a little bit pregnant? Once you're in up to your neck (in supposed nuclear filth), why not take the whole plunge? Wouldn't we just be appeasing Green sentiment to have non-hydro renewables in the mix on the same grid, which will never make nuclear redundant because of the non-viability of any storage solution?

What is the cost and what is the benefit of such a mix? Both renewables and nuclear have fixed costs,infrastructure and management. Both would be underutilized, the former because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow and the latter for the purely political reason of accommodating renewables for no tangible benefit other than a warm Green glow.

I see the overall cost far outweighing any benefit, both in financial terms and in EROEI.

The proof is in the pudding in Ontario, which has some of the highest electricity pricing in N. America and farcical subsidies hiding the extent of this fact.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/ontarios-new-electricity-policy-history-repeats-as-farce/article31862790/

https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/presentations/ontarios-electricity-dilemma.pdf

OK Luciferase, I see what you are saying.
That is right, there is no point to wind & solar.
Ontario has demonstrated it.
Coal will be closed whether we like it or not if we keep exporting it.
If we stop export we can build a few new coal fired plants as the
older ones run out of time.
We need to build new nuclear stations starting asap.

Hydro would be nice but from what I read somewhere a survey of all
the rivers on the east coast did not come up with any suitable ponds
at height.
Then the ERoEI goes down the spout because of the earth moving needed.
The problem I can see is that solar/wind has such a momentum that
there will be a horrified scream, if it was suggested that nukes be
built and solar/wind be scrapped.
Actually looking at the ERoEI there is really no choice.
I have not seen any figures of ERoEI for nuclear power stations.

However as I read that report there is really no alternative.
I always had an idea what the problem was with solar but as I have
been monitoring my solar cells lately the drop off after noon is
really dramatic and explains those spikey graphs.
If possible I would make them track.

Foxy go and make a strong cup'o tea !

"..there will be a horrified scream."

Yes, like a baby losing its warm, fuzzy blankie and forced to stare reality in the face.

You can bet that there will be a big tug'o'war over that blankie, but it must be done if we are to beat CAGW.

Dear Bazz,

A strong cup of tea is an excellent idea.
I was given an excellent box of special tea bags as a
gift for Christmas.

Most of us on this thread accept that something has to be done about reducing GHG emissions. However, only those with a technical background seem to grasp that renewables alone cannot do the job and renewables with idle gas generation back up is vastly expensive. The disaster in SA shows that nuclear needs to be seriously considered now, not in a decade when it is too late.

The issue of nuclear waste disposal is mostly political (as the disgraceful display of NIBYism showed in SA).