Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

greenman3610

(3,959 posts)
5. hehe heh. That got the desired response
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 03:40 PM
Apr 2013

actually, nukes have to be refueled every 3 years or so, when they are down for 36 days or so.
So you have to have enormous back up if you build one right off the bat. Backup that you only
need once in a while, so is very costly to maintain - ratepayers are charged for that.

Of course, the California nuke in question closed because those pesky liberals
enforced "safety" standards because of some teeny weeny radiation leak.

What you're going to see is that, as wind development gains more steam, and as grids get
upgraded, which we have to do anyway, better interconnectedness will make up for
variability. In addition, during the months when in many areas, wind is the lightest, the
dog days of summer - solar will be coming more into play as a supplement.
so to die-hard warriors of big centralized energy, I say,

Chill out. We got this.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»In California, Nuclear Tu...»Reply #5