2 ms·
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. Ign
by 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 agoSee, 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 agoStorage 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 agoYou keep repeating this, but you know it is not true.