←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.43s | source
Show context
Luker88 ◴[] No.45230034[source]
I am not sure people understand the implications of this.

First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas.

Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas.

It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing.

Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...

replies(5): >>45230176 #>>45231995 #>>45232405 #>>45232913 #>>45233455 #
m101 ◴[] No.45230176[source]
Nuclear + gas is the climate friendly solution.
replies(4): >>45230204 #>>45230313 #>>45230789 #>>45232360 #
out_of_protocol ◴[] No.45230313[source]
Nuclear produces constant amount of energy (while consumption is not stable), Solar and Wind are highly unstable, with peaks not matching consumption. Adding gas (which is fast to adjust/turn on/turn off) for maneuvers makes whole system cheaper and more stable
replies(1): >>45231857 #
slightwinder ◴[] No.45231857[source]
Except, most regions don't need constant supply, it's actually even harmful for the grid. German grid for example seems to have become significant better since the last nuclear plants were removed.
replies(1): >>45232802 #
1. ExpertAdvisor01 ◴[] No.45232802[source]
What ? They just dumped a lot of money into grid safety after the nuclear exit . Your comment doesn't make any sense.

Because of the nuclear exit they had to build Grid stabilization plants e.g in Marbach.