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

Science

John ONeill

(94 posts)

4. "If fossil fuels were banned tomorrow I think many people would embrace nuclear, solar and wind powe

Reply to Eko (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 2, 2019, 10:50 PM

Sep 2019

If they had enough nuclear to cover times of low wind and no sun, they'd have enough to cover them for the rest of the time too. Wind and solar are only useful to reduce fuel costs for a more reliable power source, and nuclear fuel is much cheaper than a huge buildout of low-capacity unreliables. It's also cheaper than coal or gas.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Interesting Data On Hourly Solar Energy Production On the ISO New England Grid, 2018. [View all] NNadir Sep 2019 OP

What? "while the tens of thousands of people killed by seawater didn't matter to the general public" Eko Sep 2019 #1

People see wind turbines as progress the same way people used to see smokestacks as progress. hunter Sep 2019 #2

Ok, Eko Sep 2019 #3

"If fossil fuels were banned tomorrow I think many people would embrace nuclear, solar and wind powe John ONeill Sep 2019 #4

Speaking only for myself, I don't see nuclear energy as a tool merely to maintain affluence. NNadir Sep 2019 #5