Didn't seem like there was much hope of that with the response I got anyway. I'm not here to take condescending comments with no substance (i.e. pointing out why it supposedly was nonsense), so I decided it was better to remove the comment and move on.
> Okay but this way it's hard not to treat it as if you did in fact post nonsense.
All the more reason for me to stop engaging, isn't it?
The gist of it was that nuclear power is insufficient in and of itself because it is hard to regulate output to match grid requirements, and therefore that we need both nuclear and renewable energy sources, not just one or the other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, I'm out of here either way.
> All the more reason for me to stop engaging, isn't it?
No, I don't think so. The skepticism all comes from your initial comment, not the followups.
> The gist of it was that nuclear power is insufficient in and of itself because it is hard to regulate output to match grid requirements, and therefore that we need both nuclear and renewable energy sources, not just one or the other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, I'm out of here either way.
Oh well that specific point is wrong. Modern nuclear can adjust its output quickly and within a wide range if the operator wants it to. We could run a 100% nuclear grid. The fundamental issue at hand is price, not capability, because reducing output makes the cost per watt go up.
also modern nuclear is probably too expensive to compete with batteries; steam turbines aren't getting cheaper fast enough, while both batteries and power semiconductors are improving at a staggering rate. there's no reason to expect that nuclear power will constitute any percentage of the power grid at all 20 or 40 years from now. 10 or 100 years from now, yes
