100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the difference is growing

Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by TaylorAlexander on Saturday May 25, 2019 @06:47PM (#20011969)

One issue I have with nuclear is the potential for widespread environmental damage if there is a technical problem either in the power plant or in the subsequent containment systems (which so far have not been well managed).

I suppose some of the new-tech nuclear offers environmental benefits compared to other technologies - I'm not very familiar with those options.

But if the proposed technology could risk destroying huge parts of the environment, that does make me seriously question it. Others have said the unit economics of nuclear are so poor that a solar field the size of the power plants containment area would produce more energy faster and at a lower price, but I don't know how true that is.

I guess my point is - I've been giving a lot more consideration to the environmental negatives of nuclear lately.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by kikoreis on Saturday May 25, 2019 @10:14PM (#20012721)

Reactors of Gen III and beyond have significantly different safety characteristics. And solar (inherently) is unable to produce continuous 24x7 energy. Those together should be enough to warrant a fresh look at nuclear.

The main practical issues with modern nuclear are up front investment and timelines, and overall economics. Those could be addressed via regulations and subsidies, but more of the general population would need to support the idea before it becomes safe politically to consider.

[ Parent | on HN ]