With the ever-ongoing ‘progress’ of the proposed UK nuclear power plants, I wonder if this is the best course of action (not just in the UK, but across other nations also)?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 days ago (4 children)

My understanding is the best answer is 'all of the above.' Nuclear is big and expensive, and just as expensive to expand, and has ongoing input costs like skilled staff, water, fuel, etc. but produces very steady, controllable power, and can do so for decades in a well designed and maintained system. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are very easily scaled down to smaller budgets, but generate intermittent power. It can be very useful to have the nuclear as a backup for moments of high demand and low solar/wind output, but very efficient to mostly use renewables because they don't have much of an ongoing input cost.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    This is a good answer.

    Nuclear for the base load that can be ramped up/down as needed, and using renewables like wind/solar/hydro as much as possible.

    In my country it's mostly hydro, which is fantastic, but would be even better if we had nuclear as a base load solution and hydro to catch the peaks and for export.
    Sadly most people fear nuclear here, so it won't happen soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Well, don't forget that wind and solar also use battery systems, not that I am arguing with you at all. I work for a solar power company, and it is really rare that we aren't contributing to the grid.

    When we aren't, it is because a deer decided to chew up a cable, honest to god. We put up fences: not to keep humans out, but deer.

    Seriously, we have a site where the gate is "locked" with a 5' ethernet cable that has a burnt end. Recycle reuse!

    But yes, nuclear is needed as the failsafe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments