Space is not a real issue. So the argument is specious. Nuclear is massively complex, expensive and time consuming to implement. Grid balancing is orders of magnitude less complex and expensive.
Replies
Standard nuclear reactors are already a solved problem and we don’t need to care about complex supply chains or weather systems or integration of lots of moving pieces, nor do we care about batteries.
jun 23, 2025, 12:03 pm • 0 0 • view
Nuclear is a far more stable and predictable source too. Contrast this with the issues that arise in dealing with over and under production, potential cascades due to lots of smaller power plants, limits or failures of energy storage, and all your “simplicity” arguments go out the window.
jun 23, 2025, 12:06 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes. Sure. It just costs much more. Takes far longer to implement and is getting more expensive all the time. Unlike solar and batteries which are getting cheaper, are faster to build, do not have such a complex regulatory regime. Nuclear may have its place, but the future is renewables.
jun 23, 2025, 6:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Yes! Stability, predictability, and energy density matter. The grid needs firm power, especially when weather-dependent sources fluctuate. Nuclear fills that role better than most realize.
jun 23, 2025, 12:47 pm • 2 0 • view
No. That's specious. The whole point of storage is to overcome that limitation.
jun 23, 2025, 6:18 pm • 0 0 • view
That's nonsense. While the process is understood, the process of building a nuclear power station is massively complex, even before you consider the regulatory regime. Compared to load balancing it is orders of magnitude more complex.
jun 23, 2025, 6:15 pm • 0 0 • view