Nuclear is a solution in countries such as India and China where it can be constructed for cheaper, but in the west it is dying due to the high cost. If nuclear only compared unfavorablely to fossil fuels the externalities could be addressed by a carbon tax. But because it compares unfavorably to renewables it is really dying.

Except renewables cannot deliver a whole network on their own ever, so there is no competition. The cost is a fake issue, because nuclear competes against coal and gas power plants and not renewables.

You need a base load capability for smoothing in an electrical grid. Most renewables are the exactly opposite. The exception is biogas or other gasification plants a these cannot handle the required load at all. Not even hydropower.

Look at what happens in Australia if you push too much solar energy (same with wind) on the network.

> Except renewables cannot deliver a whole network, so it does not.

Solar and wind need to be paired peaker plants. Conventional nuclear doesn't provide peaking ability.

Battery powered peakers are quite expensive, but the need for them can be reduced drastically through over-provisioning and interconnection.

If we could overprovision solar and wind, we wouldn't have the problem now? I find that hard to believe. What happens when you need extra load at night or during a country wide lull in wind speed?

Nuclear reduces the need for peakers exactly because it can overprovision reliably.

You could also make nuclear peakers if you wanted reasonably easily too. Nuclear plants have tunable output to a point, they're just slow and hard to fully stop, so you would make a design optimized for very tunable output and high peak power. (0)

Solar and wind cannot suddenly overprovision. The sources either exist or not, you can at most ground them instead of collecting power.

0) IAEA - Non-baseload operation of nuclear power plants: https://www.iaea.org/publications/11104/non-baseload-operati...

IIRC It's only 2 or 3 years ago (Not certain, but astonishingly recent) Australia was getting over 70% of power from coal, including a good proportion of lignite. Right down there with the worst, such as Poland. They've under-funded the grid for years, and belatedly rushed into solar at extreme speed.

Not surprising it brought consequences, they seem intent on approaching it really chaotically. :)

Who is approaching it less chaotically?

Everyone is already behind the schedule with making the energy grid zero emission.

UK has been quietly and steadily adding wind over a longer time, and modernising the grid without so much as a hiccough, reaching around 35% (ignoring biomass). The grid is still underfunded and lacking in some respects though. The Nordics have progressed similarly, but further, though I think Denmark had a couple of missteps. Sweden is over half renewables by now, Finland not far behind, Norway and Iceland (OK, they have their geothermal advantage) up near 70%.

All over the last 15 or 20 years.

Sure, I'd like everyone to go that fast, or faster, but trying for the speed of Australia's solar rollout seems to be asking for trouble. Don't know enough to say if there was anything unavoidable, or unique to Australia in their problems...

The real issue in Australia, as I imagine it is in most countries, is the fossil fuel industries lobbying the government. Oh and because of lies and misinformation told to voters (thanks Facebook), the country voted in a creationist-level PM, who believes that if the whole world burns, it's a punishment from god.

>dying due to the high cost

But if you want to fight climate change, surely any cost is worth it? Otherwise you're not serious about it. Subsidize it, do whatever it takes to save the planet. Renewables are a false solution, they're quicker to build but cannot produce energy reliably, need to be replaced often, take too much space etc. If they could replace coal, surely Germany would've done so already.

Nobody needs to use coal. Gas turbines are better in every way. Germany's addiction to coal is political not technological.

Renewables are part of the solutions but what makes up the rest will depend on where you live. The solution for Sweden won't be the same as the solution for Hawaii. It's hard to talk generally on the internet about this because it only makes sense to discuss power generation in a particular place.

So we're not allowed to criticize nuclear due to it's cost, but you're allowed to dismiss renewables because of their cost?

Where did I dismiss renewables due to cost? I'm dismissing them due to inconvenience. For example consider how many solar panels need to be installed to replace a nuclear station, how much area will they cover, how many of them will need to be replaced every day, how a few non-sunny days in a row would render it useless, etc.

Nothing is "inconvenient" for a corporation. All "inconvenient" means is that they have to pay people to do it or put up with it. IOW, a cost.

Sure if done by actual facts and economic or climate advantages. Using it as a basis to spin against hydro or wind - i.e. to prove they are unviable just makes a complete mockery of his claims. TL;DR He lies about it and makes shit up, repeatedly, in all his pieces. What's he afraid of?

Nuclear should stand on the reality of the proposition, and indeed should have a place in any low carbon solution if done properly.