3 ms·
Well, that's a false dichotomy, because no-one's (at least no-one reasonable and in good faith) is suggesting shifting the grid entirely to nuclear. Instead, a
by closewith 2y ago
Well, that's a false dichotomy, because no-one's (at least no-one reasonable and in good faith) is suggesting shifting the grid entirely to nuclear. Instead, a diverse set of generation sources is ideal, including solar, wind, nuclear and hydro.
- pjc50 2y agoDunno, all the nuclear advocates seem to contrast it with wind/solar, which are also much cheaper and quicker capital investments.
- closewith 2y agoWell, the point of this thread is that's only true until a sufficient level of availability is required, and then nuclear (and fossil thermal plants) all of a sudden become a viable option again.
- mpweiher 2y agoNope, virtually all nuclear advocates call for combined renewable/nuclear grids. Nuclear and reliable renewables for base load, intermittent renewables for intermittent load where and when it matches. Wind/solar are not cheaper. Per kWh they are more expensive. Thanks to China, they are a lower and smaller-grained capital investment.