[Imustaskforhelp]

Nuclear energy can be used to generate 24x7 energy as the grid-power to supply energy to a country whereas Solar and Wind require batteries.

I think that the last time I checked, when you take into factor the CO2 emissions and everything, Nuclear is the best source of Energy.

> I don’t think nuclear is the answer to things

I think that I am interested in seeing thorium based reactors or development with that too. That being said, Nuclear feels like the answer to me.

Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong but I don't think that there is any better form of energy source than nuclear when you factor in everything.

[ceejayoz]

Batteries are cheaper and faster to make in large quantities.

No economy on the planet needs 24/7 peak power production. The times humans work correspond nicely with the times the sun is out.

[jodrellblank]

Daytime doesn't mean the sun is out; the UK has heavy cloud cover and sunset near 4pm in mid-winter. https://grid.iamkate.com/ shows the UK is currently getting 10% of grid power from Solar at 3:30pm in March.

[ceejayoz]

Sure. That's why there's the "interconnectors" section further down; the UK can take advantage of the fact that it's rarely simultaneously dark and zero wind across entire continents.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> Batteries are cheaper and faster to make in large quantities.

Yes I agree but their extraction at scale is still very C02 Expensive.

> No economy on the planet needs 24/7 peak power production. The times humans work correspond nicely with the times the sun is out.

With Nuclear energy, let's face it. If you have a nuclear plant running, the input is just some uranium which we have plenty of. Thereotically we have no problem with running at peak power production.

You are also forgetting that Sun can be blocked during times of rains and Wind is unpredictable as well.

If you can work with solar panels only that's really really great. Unfortunately that's not how the world works or how I see it function :(

You are forgetting that markets operate after work and the late night culture and so many other things. You need lights at energy and quite a decent bit. You are also forgetting that if we ever get Electric vehicles then we would need energy during late night as well.

A lot of energy in general is still needed during nights and would we be still burning coal for that?

With all of this, I am not sure why you'd not like Nuclear?

[ceejayoz]

> You are also forgetting that Sun can be blocked during times of rains and Wind is unpredictable as well.

We already have wires that cross continents to smooth out supply variations. It's exceedingly rare you get no sun and no wind over entire continents for an extended period.

> You are forgetting that markets operate after work and the late night culture and so many other things.

I'm not forgetting it, they just use less power.

You can see this easily in charts of supply/demand throughout the day: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook#section-net-demand-tren...

> A lot of energy in general is still needed during nights and would we be still burning coal for that?

Again, batteries.

[gotwaz]

Its not just about enough sun and wind capacity. There is already over supply in lot of the world. But the supply curve doesnt match the daily DYNAMIC demand curve so grid ops still dependent on coal and gas for different reasons. It becomes about what happens during unpredicted demand spikes, or when congestion on those wires happens whose load gets priority? which producers get curtailed? etc etc That moves probs into the political domain. You can watch daily grid ops live and see the probs. Wars and the weather randomly take down wires and substations all the time. If you can move people and factories to follow the wind and the sun then maybe you get demand and supply curves to match easier.

[ceejayoz]

This is why we will overbuild solar/wind and store the extra for night time.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> We already have wires that cross continents to smooth out supply variations. It's exceedingly rare you get no sun and no wind over entire continents for an extended period.

I can be wrong but you would probably lose tons of efficiency even within High Voltage DC lines if everyday late night we take energy from different countries. Also this is getting outside of topic of discussion for me because one of the reasons we want Nuclear or Green energy in general is also the environmental plus the sovereign plus the long term affordability plans.

Another point from your first comment but if we run peak production in nuclear say in a country A, then the country A can also give power to Country B at late night similar to what you are proposed for solars.

> Again, batteries.

Once again, within my first comment I raise issue of battery. You mention a comment and I respond and then we get to batteries again.

I have no problem with solar at all without batteries but batteries really flip the equation in terms of environmental concerns.

My question is plain and simple, Why not Nuclear? I understand, I am not against Solar. Although environmentally, I feel like battery is a valid concern.

I am just saying that long term, Nuclear seems to be the better/best option. Why not Nuclear? That is a question which it seems that you may not have answered and that's a discussion worth having as well In my opinion too.

We can agree on this, correct?

[ianburrell]

HVDC is more efficient than you think, 3.5% losses per 1000km. Which means intracontinental is obviously good, and intercontinental will work in some situations.

Nuclear power is expensive, enough that “what about night” is solve by building extra solar and batteries. Also, renewables wreck the economics of base load power that needs to run all the time to pay back loan, but can’t compete with solar during the day.

[ceejayoz]

> You mention a comment and I respond and then we get to batteries again.

Yes. Because they're the answer here.

> Also this is getting outside of topic of discussion for me because one of the reasons we want Nuclear or Green energy in general is also the environmental plus the sovereign plus the long term affordability plans.

Good luck with nuclear sovereignty, if that's your concern. How many uranium mines are in the UK?

> Why not Nuclear?

/me gestures at the last 50 years of historical evidence

"Why not try nuclear" is like "why not try communism?" for physics nerds. We have tried it.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> Good luck with nuclear sovereignty, if that's your concern. How many uranium mines are in the UK?

I can't speak about UK but considering how cheap Uranium is, can UK not do cost analysis. Uranium is abundant material compared to Oil/Coal.

> /me gestures at the last 50 years of historical evidence

> "Why not try nuclear" is like "why not try communism?" for physics nerds. We have tried it.

Maybe, but I think that, I can speak about the problem within US which I can better explain but US had nuclear fearmongering attempts and Senators passed laws which increased regulations on it to the point that some regulations contradict past regulations.

Nuclear power plants being built on loan in such a flimsy regulatory market was what lead to the downfall essentially within US

Nuclear fearmongering and lobbying efforts from Oil Industry as they are one of the most strong opposers of nuclear energy[0]

Once again, how do I explain this but nuclear produces 3.2x less carbon emissions than Solar[1]

We are able to build hydropower plants, we are able to launch spaceships into moon and outer space. It's definitely possible to build nuclear if lobbying effort decreases.

I'd say that its our dependence on Oil and Coal which have been the problem. I have nothing against solar and that is something that I am saying from the start. At some point we should look towards transition towards nuclear as well. To give up on that would simply not be ideal.

[0]: https://climatecoalition.org/who-opposes-nuclear-energy/

[1]: https://solartechonline.com/blog/how-much-co2-does-solar-ene...