Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
One real advantage of nukes is that they can directly replace a coal-fired plant. Both use steam generators with similar characteristics, both support the fake "base load" concept built into the current rate structures, both connect into the existing centralized power station grid infrastructure. Also it is a "known" technology (with both pros and cons), so can be installed with using an existing, predictable regulatory process.

Changing from coal to wind or solar is complicated. You have to deal with the variability, with the lack of inertial supply, with the rate structure, and you have to run a bunch of new power lines.

I am not defending nuclear power because I think it is the wrong way to go. Also I think that the anti-nuke community would make that "existing, predictable regulatory process" a lot less predictable. But if you want to implement an immediate crash program to get off coal and onto a carbon-free (not accounting for the massive carbon emissions associated with construction) power system, nukes do have some advantages over distributed sources.

by asdf on Sun Oct 3rd, 2021 at 10:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series