Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

AFAIK gravity storage is in the works now. Nuclear works, with large risks, but so does hydro, solar, wind, without the risks of nuclear. And as we're approaching effective fusion, starting to phase out construction of new nuclears makes complete sense.

> No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear

Irrelevant, unless you want to have a mobile power generator.

> no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365.

First, not true: Geothermal and hydro both can generate power 24/7/365. Yes, that is location dependent, but you set yourself up there with using absolutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland.)

Second, we do not need a single source to deliver 24/7/365, we need "just" a power-mix capable of delivering the changing power-demand over the day. Yes, that is a technical challenge. But nuclear is facing technical challenges too.

> Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek.

Hydro-power can act as energy storage, and it has been here since practical forever: Yes, not an universal solution. And yes, it puts more strain on the grid and requires more management. But I consider your point rather hyperbolical than factual considering the progress made there.

> Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems.

Sure, and the only reason we aren't there is because of those hippies. It isn't like half of the research budget since the 50s went to nuclear research, and only 11% to renewables (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...), most of it after the 70s.

It isn't like there are technical and nuclear anti-proliferation reasons why a new nuclear reactor require huge budgets to build and operate. Or that no insurance company in the world will cover the worst-case scenario, and there is always a limited liability of the operator of such plant.

I would suggest looking at the amount of resources (money and time) invested in both nuclear power and renewables and how the costs developed respectively over time, when doing your bet on either technology.

There's a lot of anti-nuclear sentiment on HN. Anyone that's in favour of it seems to always get downvoted.

I strongly doubt there's that many places where you can build some hydro plants which haven't been used yet. At least there's approximately none in Europe.

That's fine as a philosophical thought but in reality, all the hydro capacity is already used.

The article does not explain why nuclear must be part of the energy solution. In fact, the argument seem to be that nuclear has been the target of fear mongering from environmentalists and therefore nuclear must be a part of the energy solution which is a fallacy.

Germany has decommissioned numerous nuclear plants (Energiewende) and yet its GDP is up and its coal consumption down. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... Critics said it couldn't be done, except it was done. Critics claim that Energiewende isn't popular, except surveys show that it is supported by a super majority of Germans.

The main issue nuclear power's supporters ignore is that nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. According to LAZARD 14.0, the cost for wind is $26 to $54 per MWh and $129 to $198 for nuclear. https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... Furthermore a nuclear plant costs billions to construct and is an investment that takes decades before reaching its break-even point. That's not something the market is interested in, despite record-low capital costs around the world. Should the tax-payer subsidize an energy source that is already at least four times as expensive as wind which may, in a decade or two, be ten times as expensive?