4 ms·

You make a good point, but I disagree. I'm a huge fan of solar and wind. I realize I'm over-simplifying, but the problem is that the sun does not shine (and the

You make a good point, but I disagree. I'm a huge fan of solar and wind. I realize I'm over-simplifying, but the problem is that the sun does not shine (and the wind does not blow) all the time. Either a base load source is necessary, or we need to get fantastically better at storing energy. In some areas hydro could work, but unless you're near a dam you are still going to need a coal or natural gas plant to provide baseload. Tl;dr - Why take on greater consequences unless it truly is needed? It truly IS needed.

olau 11y ago
You don't need baseload. You need to always meet the demand. Nuclear can't do that either because it's too damn expensive. You'd never build a nuclear plant to fill in at peaks. What is needed in a future with lots of renewables is dispatchable sources, not nuclear plants with flat outputs. There are several options. All of them are currently too expensive so apart from hydro you don't see them in production scale anywhere, but as the renewables sector grows, these things will start to show up. This is not a joke - you can find people researching what it would take, and it's even within reach with today's tech - expensive of course, but not impossibly so. Currently, most countries seem to be reinforcing the power lines, as the cheapest option.