It’s not a zero-sum game and we are in a climate emergency.
As I type this, wind is only making up 13% of grid demand, down from well over 50% last week - which means that gas generation is sitting at over 62% http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Nuclear is a reasonable lower carbon way of serving base-load when wind/solar aren’t delivering . I just wish, as with all things climate-related, we had committed to this 30 years ago.
And once again - it’s not a zero-game and we are in a climate emergency. Nuclear is a useful adjunct to renewables and some people need to let go of their 1970s nuclear doomerism.
But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.
And it’s not doom, it’s common sense. Renewables are better long term and quicker and cheaper to setup today, why take the worse option during an emergency?
But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.
What are your practical proposals for generating 25 Gigawatts over a sustained period on a day like today when there is not much wind and negligable solar generation?
There needs to be a mix of sources, and unfortunately nuclear is the best way to provide a reliable source that can be ramped up or down instantly to plug gaps in supply from renewables.
Nuclear is not renewable energy.
It’s not even green energy.
Renewables are the superior choice in price and effect.
It’s not a zero-sum game and we are in a climate emergency.
As I type this, wind is only making up 13% of grid demand, down from well over 50% last week - which means that gas generation is sitting at over 62% http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Nuclear is a reasonable lower carbon way of serving base-load when wind/solar aren’t delivering . I just wish, as with all things climate-related, we had committed to this 30 years ago.
And renewables are quicker, cheaper, and lower footprint.
Its a no brainer. People need to let go of ‘50s nuclear romanticism.
And once again - it’s not a zero-game and we are in a climate emergency. Nuclear is a useful adjunct to renewables and some people need to let go of their 1970s nuclear doomerism.
But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.
And it’s not doom, it’s common sense. Renewables are better long term and quicker and cheaper to setup today, why take the worse option during an emergency?
What are your practical proposals for generating 25 Gigawatts over a sustained period on a day like today when there is not much wind and negligable solar generation?
There needs to be a mix of sources, and unfortunately nuclear is the best way to provide a reliable source that can be ramped up or down instantly to plug gaps in supply from renewables.
Ramping up nuclear is not instant and is not ideal because it causes more waste by altering the working lifetime of the fuel.
Even then it’s preferable to gas
They should have been ramping it up 20 years ago. Short-termism fucks us again. Better late than never, I suppose.
Gas is not a renewable or green.
… So what do you when there’s no wind or sun?