3 ms·
Yes, there’s this sztrqnge slice of the population that really loves nuclear power because it’s hairy and expensive and dangerous, and they seem to have trouble
by KarlKemp 5y ago
Yes, there’s this sztrqnge slice of the population that really loves nuclear power because it’s hairy and expensive and dangerous, and they seem to have trouble believing that renewables can do the job, so they now grumble about „what if it’s dark?“ but aren’t interested in answers. It’s FUD, essentially.
- Plastocman 5y agoSo please tell us, what if it's dark?
- pfdietz 5y agoCombine with wind, which often blows more strongly at night (look at the curves at ercot.com for Texas, for example), and use storage (both short term efficient storage for diurnal leveling and lower capital cost storage like hydrogen for long term leveling/rare outage backup). The estimated cost of getting to 100% renewables this way is higher than the levelized cost, but still looks like it will be cheaper than nuclear.
- WastingMyTime89 5y agoIt’s not that simple. Questions on base load are legitimate even if storage and having a large grid alleviate the issue. Then in the case of solar there are the issues of both land usage and recycling in the context of an increasing demand. Nuclear is not a panacea. It has very good space used to power produced ratio and little but complicated to deal with byproducts. That’s why people like it. Anyway it is highly unlikely that the problem of power production will be solved with only one mean of production.
- pfdietz 5y agoIn the US, land usage is just about negligible as a part of the cost of solar. The PV equipment you'd put on an acre of land might cost $100K. The land itself? You can get it for $1K/acre or less in many places, even in the East.