Nuclear - is far far far more efficient per unit of space consumed - does not require storage or stabilisation like renewables so events like what happened in Spain don’t occur - does not introduce complexity in the grid - is as big a category of energy sources as renewables together
- is far more fuel efficient when we recycle uranium - recycled uranium is even safer than “single cycle uranium” Id rather our fields, mountains, and whatnot be covered with trees and vegetation, be reclaimed by nature, than by us for solar.
Also thorium. Thorium is cool. Go thorium
They're all specious arguments.
No need for proponents of either option to drag the other down - It's all monumentally better than fossil fuels, it's good to have redundancy options, different tools work better in different environments, and we need every tool at our disposal.
What happened in Spain was partly due to the fact that Spain doesn’t have enough interconnectors with France. Why? Because France doesn’t want its Spain’s cheap solar flooding the market and undercutting its nuclear. www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
Not really what they are saying in Spain currently. wishful story ...
What happened in Spain and Portugal didn't happen because of Solar. After an investigation it turned out to be the fossil fuel power plants (and nuclear) that didn't have their own systems in order to deal with voltage issues. reneweconomy.com.au/inertia-is-t...
These nuclear uranium bullettists and gas bridge to nowhereists salivate every blackout at the opportunity to frame solar and they are always wrong.
Please get your face out of your butt. If you don’t have anything useful to say stay out of the conversation. My goal is having energy sovereignty across Europe, I don’t care how we get there, but I don’t see solar and batteries and whatnot as the right path for lots of reasons outlined around.
Except that none of your reasoning stands up.
"does not require storage or stabilisation like renewables" Yes it absolutely does.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. That's specious. The whole point of storage is to overcome that limitation.
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.
Nuclear absolutely does require storage and stabilisation - individual plants are big enough that if one suddenly disconnects from the grid it's guaranteed to cause a major frequency drop.