The amount of nonsense I see pumped out by energy "experts" is insane.

"Baseload generation" is a fallacy. There is nothing saying you need the amount of power below which demand never drops to be met with thermal plants.

Grid frequency stability is a challenge facing grids transitioning to renewables - thermal plants like coal and nuclear have a lot of inertia in their rotors and so slow the rate of change of frequency. However, there are other technologies and techniques for stabilizing grid frequency.

In the UK it is becoming the case that wind is the "baseload" as in they undercut everyone on the market and so are always first.

Nuclear is almost uninvestable, investors often require government backed minimum energy price guarantees and building of nuclear plants takes far too long. The government often has to pay for much of the cost of the plant anyway.

A nuclear fission grid is not going to happen. It is not the way to go.

What can be done is strategic over-provisioning and positioning of wind power (for the UK). Wind power almost always produces something, this can be statistically modeled. The need for utility scale grid storage is overblown.

Meanwhile, Hinkley Point C is £3bn over budget and the Flamanville nuclear power plant, containing the same reactor design, is EUR 8 billion over budget and more than a decade behind schedule.

The UK has 6 (soon to be 8) of the 10 largest offshore windfarms in the world.

The question of renewables recycling will become important, but it's hard to argue that the minerals required are both in short supply from mining and too expensive to recycle.

Edit; it looks like WEEE is having the intended result, there's already a solar panel recycling plant in Europe: https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recy...

(I would expect there to be a small waste stream from installations due to panels damaged in handling, before the big waste stream begins in 10-20 years as the first installations start having degraded production and get upgraded)

A man with a serious axe to grind on nuclear, and so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent. His Bloomberg pieces are equally shoddy.

> so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent

I work in an energy company making renewable forecasts amongst other things and I agree with your judgement.

He either hates renewables, or badly wants nuclear.

This requires enough solar to break even over 24h in the winter, and enough storage to cover the night.

You need large HVDC lines, however.