If we didn’t fight Nuclear energy for decades we wouldn’t have been in half as much trouble as we are in now. But the oil companies won with their smear campaigns.
Renewable energy is cheaper now, but that wasn’t always the case. Also nuclear can be part of solving some of the issues with renewable energy. We can build massive battery banks and double our number of solar farms so that we have power when the sun goes down or we can reduce the need and incorporate nuclear
Nuclear is an either or situation. Either nuclear or renewables. It makes no sense to build a nuclear plant and not run it at 100%. They are way too expensive for that. That means your energy prices will not go down even though we have incredibly cheap energy available. Nuclear is not cheap, not renewable and obtaining the nuclear material another problem on it’s own.
Yes and that nuclear power plant is not shut down at day time. Instead renewables will be throttled if there is an overproduction. That is the either/or scenario that I mean. Every watt that is produced by a nuclear power plant is pretty much a constant and displaces renewables. It also keeps the base energy costs high because they are constantly running.
By putting a higher percentage on nuclear you reduce the need to create storage capabilities. Nuclear should ideally cover a majority of nighttime hours with the rest being handled through solar storage and wind.
Yes this will be more expensive than the current solution which is to fire up the coal plants at night, but some costs are worth it. Maybe this can be handled by battery storage, but no one has done that yet so it is hard to gage the final cost.
I care just a little more about not burning fossil fuels than the cost
Get lost with your expensive nuclear energy. Renewables produce MUCH cheaper energy.
But for a stable network you need to account for times with no sun and no wind.
If we didn’t fight Nuclear energy for decades we wouldn’t have been in half as much trouble as we are in now. But the oil companies won with their smear campaigns.
Renewable energy is cheaper now, but that wasn’t always the case. Also nuclear can be part of solving some of the issues with renewable energy. We can build massive battery banks and double our number of solar farms so that we have power when the sun goes down or we can reduce the need and incorporate nuclear
Nuclear is an either or situation. Either nuclear or renewables. It makes no sense to build a nuclear plant and not run it at 100%. They are way too expensive for that. That means your energy prices will not go down even though we have incredibly cheap energy available. Nuclear is not cheap, not renewable and obtaining the nuclear material another problem on it’s own.
No its not, how did you make up that conclusion? You can absolutely have both and you should.
Nuclear can be used to reduce the need for rather expensive storage for solar/wind energy.
You know what many places do now when solar falls short or at nighttime when the sun does not shine? They burn gas, oil, or coal.
Yes and that nuclear power plant is not shut down at day time. Instead renewables will be throttled if there is an overproduction. That is the either/or scenario that I mean. Every watt that is produced by a nuclear power plant is pretty much a constant and displaces renewables. It also keeps the base energy costs high because they are constantly running.
By putting a higher percentage on nuclear you reduce the need to create storage capabilities. Nuclear should ideally cover a majority of nighttime hours with the rest being handled through solar storage and wind.
Yes this will be more expensive than the current solution which is to fire up the coal plants at night, but some costs are worth it. Maybe this can be handled by battery storage, but no one has done that yet so it is hard to gage the final cost.
I care just a little more about not burning fossil fuels than the cost