[bilbo0s]

>If we are, then we should pull all the stops...

But is coal not one of the stops?

I guess you should help me understand. Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute. With wind providing the lion's share of the energy, the use of coal is drawn down considerably in any case. And coal is far less expensive than nuclear, even with the onerous regulations that have been slapped on it recently. So how are you going to sell nuclear to your consumers when your competitor may be selling a wind/coal package?

And as to the question of the long term, clearly that is using pumped hydro storage and other such technologies along with more efficient wind turbines. Both lowering the duration of gaps, and providing more power during gaps. So your nuclear or coal plant is, even in the optimistic case, transitional. Who's gonna put up money like that for a transitional technology without some kind of draconian government guarantees?

[manfredo]

> Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute.

The idea that nuclear waste disposal is even remotely comparable to fossil fuel pollution is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Coal plants pump toxic, carcinogenic, and radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants produce waste that can be sealed up and buried in a remote area. The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste disposal could result in poisoning humans are borderline fantasy, usually involving societal collapse to such an extent that all records of the disposal sites are lost and some future civilization digs a mile deep in rural Finland for no conceivable reason.

[ekimekim]

> They both pollute.

In this "pulling out all the stops" scenario to stop climate change, only one of them pollute in ways that matter.

Unless you mean the CO2 emissions resulting from construction, etc. I admittedly don't know the numbers there, and I'd imagine a nuclear plant uses a LOT of concrete - but it's also very long lived, which means it should amortize and come out ahead of coal which produces CO2 in operation even if it produces more upfront.

[nickelcitymario]

^this. This was going to be my response.

All energy production creates pollution in construction. Nuclear is the only source I know of that can produce consistent and reliable energy without creating any emissions from operation.

[Qwertystop]

To my understanding, while nuclear and coal do both pollute, nuclear pollutes in a less environmentally harmful and more containable way - pollutants that stay in boxes instead of going up in smoke.