• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wind and solar are great, but they cannot provide consistent 24 hours base load production. Even with massive battery farms, they cannot replace bas load consistently.

    That’s where nuclear needs to be, replacing the base load production currently being handled via coal and natural gas.

    • JGcEowt4YXuUtkBUGHoN@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The US at least already has enough nuclear to handle base loads when solar and wind are unavailable. Nukes in some contexts are needed, but I believe we have 30% or so nukes in the US. Diverting resources to new nukes is a waste when we could be making carbon fuels unprofitable soon by investing in solar and wind.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        But are they in the right places? There’s always loss in power transmission, so you can’t use reactors that are in, say, Illinois, to make up for grid deficits in Alabama (or, not directly). And Texas, being a special snowflake, isn’t tied into the national grid, so they always need their own systems.