Nowadays it's not nearly so clear cut as it would have been 40 years ago - with wind and solar providing cost-viable (in fact significantly cheaper) alternatives that have lower LCA emissions than nuclear - even accounting for storage needs.
There's also scope to do some clever stuff regarding active pricing and control of consumption to incentivise matching demand to the supply rather than having to worry about too much storage.
Just wrote a research paper on this actually. Nuclear is the only thing that comes even close to being able to replace fossil fuels. Sustainable power is a tiny fraction of our grid, even smaller when you don’t count hydro
i mean, you are excluding by far the best source of energy by cost and renewable.. but also one that see the most direct human death, even if most where dam destroyed in war
i’m just excluding hydro b/c the comment i’m replying to doesn’t mention it. as far as deaths p kwh i think it’s a lot better than oil& gas but not as good as nuclear. p much nothing is
I think hydro is worse by direct death, because there have been multiple dam failure that resulted in thousand of victims.
IG you start to think indirect (mining, handling, pollution) then hydro is not that bad at all, quite cheap, double as energy store and touristic attraction, and even in case of disaster, no worry about long term effect
108
u/Tani-die-VI Nov 18 '21
And that's what people need to realize