Thats cool and good. The grid itself will take more than 50 years to modify in a way that can handle the intermittent production of wind/solar. That gap needs to be filled by something other than fucking coal plants. 10 -20 to convert to nuclear saves us at least 30 years of FF emissions. The problem isnt sheer generation, . Renewables can make the power. its about generating or absorbing at the right times. Load and output are in a constant balancing act.
Long term yeah nuclear should be phased out and replaced with massive hydro lake batteries but policy that refuses to build nuclear now is just forcing coal/oil plants to be needed. This is why oil companies lobby all these exact same talking points.
Geography olays a big role there. There are many places where the capacity of hydro needed requires more than is environmentally safe to dam. We would have to have gigantic mega projects to build new lakes and resivoirs. (Much slower and more labor intensive than building nuclear plants)
If nuclear doesn’t fill the gaps it will be fossil fuels.In the current moment, an ‘always no matter what’ anti nuclear stance is just a pro oil and coal stance.
Thats cool and good. The grid itself will take more than 50 years to modify in a way that can handle the intermittent production of wind/solar. That gap needs to be filled by something other than fucking coal plants. 10 -20 to convert to nuclear saves us at least 30 years of FF emissions. The problem isnt sheer generation, . Renewables can make the power. its about generating or absorbing at the right times. Load and output are in a constant balancing act.
Long term yeah nuclear should be phased out and replaced with massive hydro lake batteries but policy that refuses to build nuclear now is just forcing coal/oil plants to be needed. This is why oil companies lobby all these exact same talking points.
Hydro. There you go. We don’t need nuclear we need a combo of renewables. Somehow it is possible do the top countries here just have an amazing magical grid? 70 countries with more than half from renewables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Geography olays a big role there. There are many places where the capacity of hydro needed requires more than is environmentally safe to dam. We would have to have gigantic mega projects to build new lakes and resivoirs. (Much slower and more labor intensive than building nuclear plants)
If nuclear doesn’t fill the gaps it will be fossil fuels.In the current moment, an ‘always no matter what’ anti nuclear stance is just a pro oil and coal stance.
How much resivoirs does denmark have? You just bought imto nuclear pro stance