4 ms·
No. As nuclear power cannot compete price-wise with renewables and is also a bad companion to renewables, it is already internationally on a retreat. As mention
by _ph_ 2y ago
No. As nuclear power cannot compete price-wise with renewables and is also a bad companion to renewables, it is already internationally on a retreat. As mentioned by the sibling comment, "base load" isn't the relative term. "residual load" is what counts in the day of plentiful renewables - and nuclear is exceptionally bad there. One needs gas or fast storage like hydro and more and more batteries here.
- hilbert42 2y agoResidual or base load - leave the semantics out of it. The fact is the world has been stuggling to just keep ahead of its energy requirements for the last century or so—and it's still in that situation. One would have to be blindfolded not to have noticed the Texas Power Crisis, and it's not alone by any stretch. We need much, much more energy than we have now for advanced industrial processes—many hundreds of percent more energy per capita and its growth will be exponential. That's what will happen, like it or not—or it will in some places. Society has a choice, tread water and keep its head just above to stop drowning as it's been doing for years or swim with the flow. On indications it seems the swimmers won't be the US or the West. I'm putting my money on newly developing countries who've no cultural baggage about such matters.
- _ph_ 2y agoWell, the difference between residual and base load determines what kind of power plants you need. The wrong one doesn't help you. Yes, we will need more electricity, and renewables are the only way to facilitate that. They can be built up quickly and they are way cheaper. So if you want more power, you need renewables.