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

Well, that's a false dichotomy, because no-one's (at least no-one reasonable and in good faith) is suggesting shifting the grid entirely to nuclear. Instead, a diverse set of generation sources is ideal, including solar, wind, nuclear and hydro.


Dunno, all the nuclear advocates seem to contrast it with wind/solar, which are also much cheaper and quicker capital investments.


Well, the point of this thread is that's only true until a sufficient level of availability is required, and then nuclear (and fossil thermal plants) all of a sudden become a viable option again.


Nope, virtually all nuclear advocates call for combined renewable/nuclear grids.

Nuclear and reliable renewables for base load, intermittent renewables for intermittent load where and when it matches.

Wind/solar are not cheaper. Per kWh they are more expensive. Thanks to China, they are a lower and smaller-grained capital investment.




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

Search: