3 ms·

Nuclear power is cost prohibitive. How about: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160368 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160368? For the cost to be pr

• olau 8y ago
  Or this: https://thebulletin.org/2013/03/how-to-close-the-us-nuclear-industry-do-nothing/ https://thebulletin.org/2013/03/how-to-close-the-us-nuclear-...
• mcjiggerlog 8y ago
  Wind is not a like-for-like replacement for nuclear. The amount of land wind would need to replace just one nuclear reactor is many orders of magnitude greater. Renewables must be supported by a reliable base-load supply, which effectively means you need to choose between either nuclear or fossil fuels.
  • gmac 8y ago
    1. The amount of land or sea, which latter makes for a dearer installation but is much easier to find in densely populated countries like the UK. 2. My understanding is that, sure, you can't have a grid that runs purely on wind, but you can go a lot higher than we currently do without much trouble. The issue with massive new nuclear is that outages can take a sizeable percentage of your generation off-grid unexpectedly at a moment's notice (Hinkley will I believe represent 7% of UK grid capacity), which in a sense is a worse intermittency problem than you get with renewables (which tend to ramp up and down more smoothly and broadly in line with weather forecasts). Also, battery storage can help.