Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's still less than half what's produced by coal or oil.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

There are a limited number of locations where hydro is viable and most of them have been tapped (last I read about it at least),

I'm 100% with you on nuclear.

Regardless of cost, we need base load capabilities when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is down. Grid storage hasn't been well proven yet. People are actively fighting nuclear and the costs as well as timeliness are crazy. If there's one thing in this country worth wasting money on, it's nuclear.

If we can't get base load generation from nuclear due to all of the financial risks, NG is about all that's left to carry the load as an improvement over coal and oil.

I'd much rather have zero emission nuclear, but NG is the stop gap that we are left with until we start committing to nuclear (or we have a better round-the-clock option).



> we need base load capabilities when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is down

That's not a proper use of the concept "base load".

We used to have plants which are only cost-effective when run 24/7, but are cheaper than other kinds. The concept of "base load" is to build those kinds of plants to meet roughly the lowest daily usage so as to minimize costs.

It isn't a substitute for "capacity needed when renewables aren't generating".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: