Interestingly there has been a lot of discussion about hydrogen lately[0] because the Inflation Reduction Act provides a tax credit for production of clean hydrogen (e.g. hydrogen not from methane). Nuclear is one of the best possible methods to ways to generate this (high electricity, high heat) given that its operation does not generate carbon (just like renewables). The problem? Nuclear power generates $30/MWhr and will make between $60-$70MWhr producing hydrogen. Sounds like a win, but reactors are already at 90% capacity and supply ~20% of the US's energy and half of our zero emission energy.
Variability isn't that much of an advantage. Excess energy can often be sold off as well, reducing other areas' reliance on fossil fuels. France, Norway (almost all hydro), and Sweden (also a major nuclear player) and the main energy exporters in Europe (also lowest energy based carbon emitters)[1,2]. We see a similar thing with Quebec (major nuclear). But it is concerning given that nuclear is the main source of zero emission energy in the American South East[3]. Gates probably isn't concerning himself with the variability since there's no shortage of regions where selling a zero emission source isn't going to help reduce its neighbors energy emissions. The only areas where there is a shortage is where regions already rely heavily on either nuclear or hydro (or a combination).
There's no reason to not run at max load. You either sell the energy or your produce hydrogen. This is also a big reason that a carbon tax makes nuclear a viable option. Just for reference, here's an annual solar radiance map[4], wind (10m)[5], and hydro[6] as they might help explain the situation in the South East.
Variability isn't that much of an advantage. Excess energy can often be sold off as well, reducing other areas' reliance on fossil fuels. France, Norway (almost all hydro), and Sweden (also a major nuclear player) and the main energy exporters in Europe (also lowest energy based carbon emitters)[1,2]. We see a similar thing with Quebec (major nuclear). But it is concerning given that nuclear is the main source of zero emission energy in the American South East[3]. Gates probably isn't concerning himself with the variability since there's no shortage of regions where selling a zero emission source isn't going to help reduce its neighbors energy emissions. The only areas where there is a shortage is where regions already rely heavily on either nuclear or hydro (or a combination).
There's no reason to not run at max load. You either sell the energy or your produce hydrogen. This is also a big reason that a carbon tax makes nuclear a viable option. Just for reference, here's an annual solar radiance map[4], wind (10m)[5], and hydro[6] as they might help explain the situation in the South East.
[0] https://heatmap.news/economy/the-nuclear-hydrogen-conundrum
[1] https://www.enappsys.com/interconnectorreview/
[2] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR
[3] 80% of TVA's zero carbon, 77% of SCS, 86% of Duke Carolinas, 81% of Duke Ease, 80% of PJM(looking at 12 months)
[4] https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018...
[4.5] find other maps -- look at DNI -- for different months and energy sources here https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar-resource-maps.html
[5] https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/wtk-10m-2017-01.jpg
[6] https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/map_hydrogen_kg_count...