Re:Nuclear power plant leaked 1.5M litres of radioactive wat...
by Gwypaas on Sunday March 19, 2023 @04:58AM
(#35217225)
Now you are assassinating the character of a person I have not mentioned. Is that what is necessary to sell nuclear?
Do you bet against this?
Re:Nuclear power plant leaked 1.5M litres of radioactive wat...
by acidburnNSA on Sunday March 19, 2023 @10:25AM
(#35219213)
Nope, I am pointing out that 100% renewables is far harder than claimed, that criticism has been suppressed, and providing refs to back up my points.
I'm pro anything low carbon. I love wind and solar and hydro and nuclear. These no-nuclear people are trying to get us to tie a hand behind our backs for no reason in the midst of a climate crisis. Energy generation choices are not a zero sum game.
Lots of antinuclear people mistakenly believe that pro-nuclear people are also anti-wind or anti-solar when in fact we are usually just anti-fossil and biofuel.
Re:Nuclear power plant leaked 1.5M litres of radioactive wat...
by Gwypaas on Sunday March 19, 2023 @11:35AM
(#35220011)
We can agree that 90% is trivially solvable. That will get deployed shortly.
So you are telling me that a peaking nuclear plant will solve the last 10% when it comes online at earliest 2040? What problem are we even solving then rather than brute forcing nuclear into the solution?
Then try put that nuclear power plant on a marginal price market. What do you expect to happen?
But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2]
[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered...
[2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...