4 ms·

Nuclear is almost the cleanest electricity source, second only to hydro. If you're going to count intermittent sources (aka pv and wind) then take into account

by rakoo 8y ago

Nuclear is almost the cleanest electricity source, second only to hydro. If you're going to count intermittent sources (aka pv and wind) then take into account that we want reliable current flowing through the outlet, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines. Either you factor in batteries (which also need to be built, typically in acountry that uses a lot of fossil fuel for electricity), or you supplement it with something that has the flexibility you want, and that's gas. Nuclear waste is stored safely, the myth that "we don't know what to do with waste" needs to die ASAP. Do you know what electricity source has no strategy for storing waste at all? Fossil fuels and intermittent energies. There were designs for new types of reactors. The prototypes were working. Unfortunately it was cancelled because environmentalists are too blind to see the priority in problems.

anoncake 8y ago
We dont need batteries. We need energy storage. Other ways of storing energy are not nearly as space-efficient, but that does not matter here. We also dont strictly need power to be 100% reliable. Throttling down industrial production is preferable to 1000s of square kilometres being made uninhabitable by nuclear power.
- rakoo 8y ago
  It absolutely matters if we're talking about useful scales, ie delivering hundreds of MWs over days. Otherwise it's just a pet project with no chance to ever replace fossil fuel. And yes, we do need power to be reliable. We need to power infrastructure that runs 24/7 (not everything is industrial production). Nuclear is definitely the best clean energy in terms of land use, for the same area you'll be producing much more electricity.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > It absolutely matters if we're talking about useful scales, ie delivering hundreds of MWs over days. You do know that countries tend to be a lot larger than, say, cars and phones? But even if energy density were a factor: The one of liquid hydrogen is great. > And yes, we do need power to be reliable. We need to power infrastructure that runs 24/7 (not everything is industrial production). We need some power 24/7, not all. > Nuclear is definitely the best clean energy in terms of land use Land use is what makes nuclear inacceptable. Once they fail, they make thousands of square kilometres uninhabitable.

by rakoo 8y ago

anoncake 8y ago

We dont need batteries. We need energy storage. Other ways of storing energy are not nearly as space-efficient, but that does not matter here. We also dont strictly need power to be 100% reliable. Throttling down industrial production is preferable to 1000s of square kilometres being made uninhabitable by nuclear power.

rakoo 8y ago
It absolutely matters if we're talking about useful scales, ie delivering hundreds of MWs over days. Otherwise it's just a pet project with no chance to ever replace fossil fuel. And yes, we do need power to be reliable. We need to power infrastructure that runs 24/7 (not everything is industrial production). Nuclear is definitely the best clean energy in terms of land use, for the same area you'll be producing much more electricity.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > It absolutely matters if we're talking about useful scales, ie delivering hundreds of MWs over days. You do know that countries tend to be a lot larger than, say, cars and phones? But even if energy density were a factor: The one of liquid hydrogen is great. > And yes, we do need power to be reliable. We need to power infrastructure that runs 24/7 (not everything is industrial production). We need some power 24/7, not all. > Nuclear is definitely the best clean energy in terms of land use Land use is what makes nuclear inacceptable. Once they fail, they make thousands of square kilometres uninhabitable.