3 ms·
I don't think anyone is pretending accidents don't happen, only that over all there are far fewer deaths per gigawatt of nuclear than other options. Handling n
by JamesBarney 6y ago
I don't think anyone is pretending accidents don't happen, only that over all there are far fewer deaths per gigawatt of nuclear than other options.
Handling nuclear waste is a hard problem but it's 100x easier than handling CO2 waste.
And is nuclear more expensive than other renewables? I think that really depends, I don't think you can compare 99.9% reliability power to 95% reliability power. They're two different goods sold at two different prices. You can use batteries or other storage to convert the 95% reliability into 99.9% but then that puts renewables at a cost far above nuclear.
- godelski 6y agoI think the major issue is that those uninformed on the subjects treat the energy problem as if there is a singular solution: renewables, nuclear, fossil fuels. Which this is such a weird way to present the problem. But then again I see a lot of people complain about CCS because it "encourages the use of fossil fuels," implying that means emissions, which it doesn't. The conversation has become political and not technical and I think that's what is frustrating to me. (I bring up CCS because it is discussed in the article and also something controversial in the public eye but not in the scientific community)
- throw0101a 6y ago> I think that really depends, I don't think you can compare 99.9% reliability power to 95% reliability power. I question whether you can call any renewable 95% reliable. The capacity factor of solar in the US has averaged 25% and wind at about 35%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#United_States One can certainly argue a large enough grid can shuffle energy to and from across large areas to create 'aggregate reliability' of course.