Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

Post by pydry » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #340

pydry wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember people saying something similar about the amount of deployed solar and wind shortly after it became cost competitive. There used to be a tiny amount deployed but it was the cheapest form of power. Then over the course of a few years there was a lot. All that really matters is A) is it cost effective B) will there be scaling problems C) will there be political impediments.

Solar is not cost-effective today for applying power after the sun sets (duck curve) or at night. Wind is not cost-effective at supplying power on calm days. If they were required to build the rest of the system to be reliable (longer interconnects, batteries, etc) it suddenly wouldn't be cost-effective, this explaining why energy cost continues to go up while this supposedly cheap power ramps up.

Post by fsflover » Tue, Nov 23, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

empthought wrote: post #351

fsflover wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no practical risk in both cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Safety

It is absolutely comical you can claim that and cite a paragraph that concludes, “in January 2015, the number of Fukushima evacuees was around 119,000, compared with a peak of around 164,000 in June 2012.[174]”