this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
144 points (100.0% liked)
News
1751 readers
1 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Renewables are fantastic, but I think we'll need to supplement with nuclear in order to shoulder the demand while we transition off of burning fossil fuels.
So in short, please build more.
Devils advocate, why build more nuclear plants when you could build more renewables? If it’s a scaling issue, in that you need a ton more infrastructure for renewables, and need to supplement with nuclear, wouldn’t that then always be the case in the future? I hear nuclear is needed to bridge the gap often, but it always sounds like it’s temporary, which I don’t understand - seems like nuclear would be needed forever if renewables aren’t able to scale well?
Take solar as an example, the current technology isn't developed enough to generate the amount of Kilowatt hours necessary to provide ample power to users. You can't build to scale yet. Buffering with nuclear power, despite the long-term fuel waste disposal, is an effective way to help eliminate greenhouse gases.
There's a need for high capacity power generation, and at this point the renewable technologies are not developed enough to ween ourselves entirely off coal and natural gas. Then you have to take into account the growing EV demand, which has barely begun to generate user demand.
I understand all of that, and I understand the need currently. I guess my question is, if solar (as an example) is not scalable due to physical limitations (both the materials physics portion, as well as the actual physical dimensions required given the limitations of the physics), then isn't the statement that nuclear is a stop-gap incorrect? We will need it indefinitely to augment the power needs not met by renewables.