4 ms·
Nukes also involve big transmission line projects, so it is a wash,.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Nukes also involve big transmission line projects, so it is a wash,.
- robertlagrant 4y agoThis seems to misunderstand the context. Previous poster was saying that with enough renewables hundreds or thousands of miles apart, there will always be enough power generation capacity. The response was around how the newest transmission technology isn't so lossy. But that would mean we'd have to replace all transmission lines. This doesn't apply to nuclear because it doesn't rely on generation potentially coming from 500 miles away to make it work.
- ETH_start 4y agoNot nearly as much as requires to overcome the intermittency issue of renewable power sources.
- onethought 4y agoTo completely replace fossil fuel, you need a lot of nuclear plants and nuclear materials and transmission lines. For renewables you can handle a lot of the load near the consumption point and only need to transmit the “night load” which is usually much less.
- ETH_start 4y agoI recommend you look at the estimates on how much storage and/or transmission lines are needed to go full renewable.
- ncmncm 4y agoPeople will "estimate" all kinds of things according to their favored assumptions. Most are worth the paper they are printed on.
- ETH_start 4y agoSo if we can't trust statistics provided, how are we supposed to collectively discuss and reason about the options to determine the most economical one?
- onethought 4y agoHow many nuclear plants are required to go fully nuclear? I haven’t seen those estimates at all which is interesting