3 ms·
No nuclear isn't green. Solar and wind is green. These are needed to be built to meet the electricity requirements.
by blackoil 4y ago
No nuclear isn't green. Solar and wind is green. These are needed to be built to meet the electricity requirements.
- afiori 4y agoNuclear is green enough.
- danans 4y ago"Green" is a spent adjective at this point. Nuclear is zero carbon, but not renewable, and is a source of non dispatchable baseload. Solar and wind are both zero carbon and renewable, but not dispatchable and not a baseload source. Solar and wind plus storage are zero carbon, renewable, and also a source of dispatchable baseload.
- Brometheus 4y agoWe have minutenreserveleistung (MRL) using wind in Germany, but this is not the best solution :joy:
- blackoil 4y agoRenewable and green are orthogonal. Renewable is important for long term availability of the resource, which is not a practical constraint for nuclear.
- danans 4y ago> which is not a practical constraint for nuclear. It is very much a practical constraint for current nuclear reactors (whether traditional or SMR) whose uranium supply chains lead straight to problem zones [1]. Using conventionally mined uranium, traditional reactors would only provide 5 years of the world's electricity demand [2]. Seawater-extracted uranium could stretch into the thousands of years, but that is unproven at scale and cost. Similarly unproven are the fast breeder reactors needed to truly make the non-renewability of nuclear moot. 1. https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/electric-power/070722-global-nuclear-fuel-supply-chain-uranium-russia-ukraine-war https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight... 2. https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html#:~:text=Uranium%20abundance%3A%20At%20the%20current,for%20less%20than%205%20years https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm....