5 ms·

Nukes' competition is not coal. It is renewables. Comparing to coal is tendentious and disingenuous, not to say dishonest.

• ch4s3 4y ago
  Not really m. Something has to provide power when the sun and wind aren’t available. Right now that’s natural gas, coal, hydro, or nuclear.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    "Right now". Right now all the nuke plants you are talking about don't exist, so produce exactly 0 watts.
    • ch4s3 4y ago
      We’ll there is a good deal in some places.
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        For now, until their production cost exceeds alternatives. Then they will be mothballed.
  • pydry 4y ago
    Pumped storage and grid scale batteries provide that at much cheaper cost overall. Nowhere near as much is needed as people think either.
    • ch4s3 4y ago
      Where are grid scale batteries doing that today?
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        Before a thing has been built, it needs to be built. Do you need this explained further? The overwhelming bulk of utility storage will not be batteries, because that is the most expensive alternative. Utility storage will be whatever is cheap and locally practical.
        • ch4s3 4y ago
          That’s basically what I meant.
      • pydry 4y ago
        California, Hawaii, Australia. In hawaii they canceled a proposed inter-island power connector because batteries + solar were just cheaper. Pumped storage is generally a lot more economic and can store a lot more than batteries but it cant be built quite as quickly & is somewhat geographically dependent. It takes 4-5 years to deploy rather than months.
    • stjohnswarts 4y ago
      that assumes grid scale batteries exist that can back up power for 10-16 hours a day at a time and those don't exist.