DM_me_ur_tacos t1_iuzil0t wrote
It would have been smart to aggressively phase out coal and ramp up nuclear production 40 years ago. But wind and solar have matured to the point that building nuclear now is a waste of money.
ProfessorrFate t1_iv5bpqt wrote
Disagree. Diverse energy sources are needed — pursuing “all eggs in one basket” approach has numerous problems. What we definitely need are cost-effective non-carbon energy sources; renewables AND nuclear are the answer.
Neker t1_iveicef wrote
It all depends wether you prefer to trust investment bankers or climate scientists.
Also, wind and solar do not exist. It is always wind and solar and an equal dispatchable capacity, which is most often fossil-burning, carbon-spewing. A true comparison would include the cost of these double infrastructure and double-maintenance, as well as the costs of continuing emissions of carbon dioxide.
This oft-cited Lazard study completely ignores one fundamental characteristic of electric grids : production is strictly on-demand, zero-stock and zero-delay.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments