3 ms·
Until we figure out how to make large scale energy storage economical, we are still going to be stuck with the problem of providing a base-load for the grid. As
by hetman 13y ago
Until we figure out how to make large scale energy storage economical, we are still going to be stuck with the problem of providing a base-load for the grid. As far as environmental impact, nuclear fission still seems like the best option to me to fill that need. If his analysis is correct it certainly does indicate there's a place for both renewable and nuclear to coëxist in the short term.
- brazzy 13y ago> there's a place for both renewable and nuclear to coëxist in the short term. Except that there is absolutely nothing short therm about nuclear. If you build it, you're stuck with it for decades or have to swallow huge write-offs. And of course the waste stays with you for centuries or millenia.
- hetman 13y agoI think we're talking about different periods of time when referring to the "short term". My short term is probably your medium term. While there are some technologies to dispose of the waste, such as breeder reactors, even burying the highly stabilised waste in a small area surely seems favourable to dumping it over large geographic areas as traditional fossil fuels do. It's not like there's a dearth of radioactives in the Earth's crust already.
- welterde 13y agoThe radioactive elements in fossil fuels is less of a problem than you think, because a) coal plants, etc. have to filter these out (at least in germany they do) b) they have short half-times. And storing the radioactive waste for a few thousand years is by no means an easy/cheap task.. just look at the two experimental radioactive waste sites in germany.. both turned out to be a huge disaster in less than 100 years. Also I am not convinced that breeder reactors help you that much to get rid of thousands of tons of radioactive reactor assembly.