4 ms·

Competitive with intermittent sources backed by fossil fuels? No, but those emit carbon emissions. And we lack the ability to add significant amounts of energy

Competitive with intermittent sources backed by fossil fuels? No, but those emit carbon emissions. And we lack the ability to add significant amounts of energy storage, so wind and solar will never conceivably break free of it's dependence on fossil fuels during non- production. It's the most competitive non-intermittent and geographically independent source of carbon-free energy. Because it's the only such source.

ncmncm 4y ago
And yet, not competitive. So, there is something missing in your model. It is for you to figure out what is wrong.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  It's not competitive with a power source containing fossil fuels. And there's no feasible way to run a grid composed of wind and solar without fossil fuels. Ignoring the fact that wind and solar generation is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels, to offset the intermittency is naive. In areas without hydroelectric and geothermal potential, nuclear is the most competitive carbon-free and non+intermittent option. Because it's the only option. That's why for all your insistence that nuclear is uncompetitive, it produces more electricity than wind and solar combined.i
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    See, you got the wrong answer again. Renewables plus local storage, transmission line, and/or ability to burn imported ammonia or hydrogen suffices, and at radically less cost, with no risk of rendering large areas uninhabitable.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Storage at anywhere near significant levels does not yet exist, and might not be achieved in the time necessary to curb the worst effects of climate change. Ammonia and hydrogen storage has been proposed, for decades, yet remains out of reach at the scales necessary to make renewables viable. Wind and solar is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels. Assuming that we'll be able to replace the last item with energy storage is betting the future of our climate on an engineering breakthrough. No such gamble exists with nuclear, countries like France have successfully produced nearly all their electricity with nuclear power for decades.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        You keep repeating this, but you know it is not true.

ncmncm 4y ago

And yet, not competitive. So, there is something missing in your model. It is for you to figure out what is wrong.

Manuel_D 4y ago
It's not competitive with a power source containing fossil fuels. And there's no feasible way to run a grid composed of wind and solar without fossil fuels. Ignoring the fact that wind and solar generation is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels, to offset the intermittency is naive. In areas without hydroelectric and geothermal potential, nuclear is the most competitive carbon-free and non+intermittent option. Because it's the only option. That's why for all your insistence that nuclear is uncompetitive, it produces more electricity than wind and solar combined.i
- ncmncm 4y ago
  See, you got the wrong answer again. Renewables plus local storage, transmission line, and/or ability to burn imported ammonia or hydrogen suffices, and at radically less cost, with no risk of rendering large areas uninhabitable.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Storage at anywhere near significant levels does not yet exist, and might not be achieved in the time necessary to curb the worst effects of climate change. Ammonia and hydrogen storage has been proposed, for decades, yet remains out of reach at the scales necessary to make renewables viable. Wind and solar is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels. Assuming that we'll be able to replace the last item with energy storage is betting the future of our climate on an engineering breakthrough. No such gamble exists with nuclear, countries like France have successfully produced nearly all their electricity with nuclear power for decades.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You keep repeating this, but you know it is not true.