[socialdemocrat]

It is worth pursuing solutions like Moltex though because eventually we need to find a replacement for the gas power plants which will be backing up wind and solar.

Pumped hydro, cryogenic storage, thermal storage, batteries, green hydrogen etc may tackle a lot of that but we simply don’t know what solution will end of working best.

Wind and solar has to be primary focus for the next 10-15 years but once we reach 60-70% of the grid being renewable you cannot really go much further. Solutions which can deliver power on demand will be crucial. If MSR guys can get stuff going within 10 years then they may be part of the solution.

[ncmncm]

Existing peaker plants will burn synthetic ammonia or hydrogen, once there is enough spare renewable generating capacity to synthesize that. In the meantime, we build out the renewable generating capacity. Then we build out hydrogen and ammonia synthesis.

There is no place for nukes in the inner solar system. Out Jupiter and beyond, ok.

[mlyle]

> In the meantime, we build out the renewable generating capacity.

We're already dipping into times of negative electric power cost in places with high renewable penetration... and a whole lot of the rest of the day where storage is needed, and a whole lot of usages that are not electric yet which will increase demand.

Yes, more renewable build out is necessary and helpful. But it won't get us low enough in carbon intensity soon enough alone.

[ncmncm]

Diverting money from renewable build-out for contraptions that will not deliver any energy at all year after year would, then, be strictly worse.

[mlyle]

I'm not proposing diverting money from renewable build-out. But surely we can also build a few conventional plants for nuclear base load for all the additional heating, industrial, etc, demand we'll have as things electrify... and try a prototype design or two to gain information.

It's not like there's one purely fungible pool of resources to build all things and solve all human problems.

Diversity in approaches is way better than your all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy.

[ncmncm]

But money really is fungible. Each dollar tied up in building nukes is exactly a dollar unavailable for building out renewables. Furthermore, during each year waiting for the nuke to come online (if indeed it ever does, and is not cancelled after years of delays and cost overruns) all the dollars spent on coal are also unavailable to build out renewables.

Since each dollar spent on renewables produces several times the watt-hours produced by a dollar's worth of the nuke, diverting that dollar to the nuke has brought climate catastrophe that much nearer.

[mlyle]

> But money really is fungible.

Money is fungible, but the individual supply curves of different things you buy with the money aren't flat.

> and is not cancelled after years of delays and cost overruns

This is a super-disingenuous argument, especially since I'm guessing you're part of a faction behind the scene inducing many of these delays, cancellations, and cost overruns through objection to nuclear's safety and utility.

> Since each dollar spent on renewables produces several times the watt-hours produced by a dollar's worth of the nuke, diverting that dollar to the nuke has brought climate catastrophe that much nearer.

Alternatively, every year assuming that renewables will eventually be able to provide enough industrial and base load through storage, if in error, commits us more and more to climate catastrophe. You handwave away objections. Storing enough is going to be really really hard and may not happen in time.

Our extant example of a very-low-carbon grid has a big mix of nuclear in it. We may not want to commit to building the exact same thing, but I don't think we should totally ignore the example that has produced this outcome.