> Even if you have your clean energy sources the economics are not there yet.
This is patently untrue. The only thing holding wind back is ever more byzantine regulations coming largely from fossil fuels and nuclear. In any country south of lithuania (about 90% of people) solar or solar storage is also more viable than nuclear.
> Unfortunately we do need to be realistic and stop nuclear shaming.
Realism involves doing the thing that lowers emissions fastest with the smallest amount of resources.
For almost any country with <50% penetration this is wind and solar. Many countries can have a mix with up to 80% for less than nuclear.
Even for countries without hydro or good sunlight having whatever already exists (or gas if it replaces coal) fill the remainder is far more emissions prevented far sooner. If you have a funded commitment for those 80% renewables, by all means plan nuclear for the rest, but unless you do you're just helping fossil fuels stay on.
And when 4 day storage or electrolysis becomes viable that can be phased out too.
Then there is the absolute certainty that -- the millisecond let the likes of chevron or shell or anyone similar run nuclear plants -- we'll have some idiot manager order the 5 or 6 colossally stupid things you have to do in sequence to get another chernobyl (or significantly worse) in the name of cost saving or pumping up some kpi.
This is patently untrue. The only thing holding wind back is ever more byzantine regulations coming largely from fossil fuels and nuclear. In any country south of lithuania (about 90% of people) solar or solar storage is also more viable than nuclear.
> Unfortunately we do need to be realistic and stop nuclear shaming.
Realism involves doing the thing that lowers emissions fastest with the smallest amount of resources.
For almost any country with <50% penetration this is wind and solar. Many countries can have a mix with up to 80% for less than nuclear.
Even for countries without hydro or good sunlight having whatever already exists (or gas if it replaces coal) fill the remainder is far more emissions prevented far sooner. If you have a funded commitment for those 80% renewables, by all means plan nuclear for the rest, but unless you do you're just helping fossil fuels stay on.
And when 4 day storage or electrolysis becomes viable that can be phased out too.
Then there is the absolute certainty that -- the millisecond let the likes of chevron or shell or anyone similar run nuclear plants -- we'll have some idiot manager order the 5 or 6 colossally stupid things you have to do in sequence to get another chernobyl (or significantly worse) in the name of cost saving or pumping up some kpi.