SmokinStalin [comrade/them]

  • 4 Posts
  • 253 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle





  • 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.