3 ms·
I don't think 100% nuclear is the solution and long term renewables are a far better option. Mid term nuclear has a place.
by xupybd 4y ago
I don't think 100% nuclear is the solution and long term renewables are a far better option. Mid term nuclear has a place.
- pfdietz 4y agoI think existing nuclear plants can remain operating in many cases. But building new plants? I don't see that making sense anywhere.
- xupybd 4y agoIn Europe now that Russian gas is not on tap?
- pfdietz 4y agoBuilding new nuclear plants would be a silly response to the current energy shock in Europe, since it would take so long for new NPPs to come on line. Renewables to reduce gas demand make much more sense, available both more quickly and more cheaply.
- scarby2 4y agoWhy not do both? I don't want to be here in 30 years time wishing we'd built reactors 30 years ago (which is where we are today)
- pfdietz 4y agoWhy not? Because it's economically pointless to build more nuclear at current prices. The current situation where you might regret not having built more reactors 30 years ago is not comparable. Renewables were not competitive with nuclear 30 years ago. But that situation no longer obtains.
- jskrablin 4y agoRenewables require backup generation. And usually that's gas burning powerplants because they have very short startup times. Main reason for wild prices of electricity in EU is gas supply crisis.
- pfdietz 4y agoAs response to the loss of Russian gas, renewables don't have to replace all fossil fuels. They just have to reduce fossil consumption enough to compensate for that loss. Eventually, all fossil fuel use must be replaced, but that has nothing to do with the issue of responding to Putin that I was addressing. And the backup generation can eventually be non-fossil also, particularly hydrogen. Europe has massive amounts of potential capacity for underground storage for hydrogen, far more than would be needed.