2 ms·
Among the large set of people who think we should take steps to reduce anthropogenic global warming there are at least two subsets who seem to oppose nuclear po
by nradov 9mo ago
Among the large set of people who think we should take steps to reduce anthropogenic global warming there are at least two subsets who seem to oppose nuclear power. One is sort of pseudo-religious and believes that any disruption of the natural environment is a "sin" against Mother Nature. The other claims that nuclear power is too expensive and that we can solve the base load power problem more cheaply with battery storage, despite the lack of evidence that we'll be able to scale it up fast enough in the time available. And I have nothing against building more battery storage where it makes sense, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient by itself.
- bryanlarsen 9mo agoIt's not a base load problem, it's an intermittency problem. Which you solve with dispatchable generation. Which nuclear is particularly ill suited for. > in the time available. Which also eliminates nuclear as an option; Ontario is building new nuclear power that is projected to become available in the late 2040's. After the inevitable delays that'll be the 2050's. Way too late. The solution is simple & cheap, though nobody wants to admit it. Use paid-for existing zero-carbon generation first (aka existing nuclear, hydro, etc), then add solar & wind to cover ~60% of needs, then add batteries to cover ~95% of needs, and then use natgas peakers to cover the last ~5%. Environmentalists don't like it because it's not 100% carbon free. Anti-environmentalists don't like it because it's 95% solar/wind/batteries. Economists and pragmatists should love it because it's the cheapest.