Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022

[Frankfooter]

It's a fossil fuel that produces fewer emissions than other fossil fuels.

This is one of your best lines yet, where you say the best way to reduce fossil fuel use is to use more natural gas.

The only way to produce any measureable reduction in fossil fuels is through major increases in energy from nuclear power and natural gas.

Its like you're arguing that the only way to quit drinking is to move from beer to wine.
Hilarious, more comedy gold.

 

[Frankfooter]

Like this?:

Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change

To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them

www.theguardian.com

Cool, a six year old article. Really encapsulates the latest numbers for how affordable renewables vs nukes are, doesn't it?
Did they say use more natural gas like you think?
Whoops, just another article you posted that disagrees with you, isn't it?

 

[danmand]

Cool, a six year old article. Really encapsulates the latest numbers for how affordable renewables vs nukes are, doesn't it?
Did they say use more natural gas like you think?
Whoops, just another article you posted that disagrees with you, isn't it?

I think the fate of nuclear energy rests in the perception of the public. In Northern Europe the population have decided that the perceived risk of nuclear power is too high, and are closing existing nuclear power stations.

In France and North America, that is not the case.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think the fate of nuclear energy rests in the perception of the public. In Northern Europe the population have decided that the perceived risk of nuclear power is too high, and are closing existing nuclear power stations.

In France and North America, that is not the case.

True, but the Candu maintenance bills may stop Canadians from doing it again. They've been safe, but very expensive to keep running.

 

[toguy5252]

I think the fate of nuclear energy rests in the perception of the public. In Northern Europe the population have decided that the perceived risk of nuclear power is too high, and are closing existing nuclear power stations.

In France and North America, that is not the case.

The problem with nuclear is more perceptional then technical or real. it does have a place in the power grid and could greatly reduce the dependence on fossil fuels but is only a part of the solution.

 

[JohnLarue]

The problem with nuclear is more perceptional then technical or real. it does have a place in the power grid and could greatly reduce the dependence on fossil fuels but is only a part of the solution.

Exactly why is it only a part of the solution?
It is the only source which is reliable and could conceivably displace a meaningful fraction of fossil fuel energy............. if that is your goal

Every solar / wind source needs a reliable backup source
They are a waste of resources

On the plus side they have been great PR and virtue signaling opportunities, but they wont keep the lights on

 

[danmand]

The problem with nuclear is more perceptional then technical or real. it does have a place in the power grid and could greatly reduce the dependence on fossil fuels but is only a part of the solution.

That may be the case, I cannot compare danger from burning coal and nuclear plants.

However, the few accidents with nuclear power plants - Fukushima and Chernobyl - have been so horrible, that many have demanded an end to nuclear power. For good or bad, there are more democracy in Continental Europe than in North America, and politicians have to act on what the population want.

 

[toguy5252]

That may be the case, I cannot compare danger from burning coal and nuclear plants.

However, the few accidents with nuclear power plants - Fukushima and Chernobyl - have been so horrible, that many have demanded an end to nuclear power. For good or bad, there are more democracy in Continental Europe than in North America, and politicians have to act on what the population want.

You are obviously correct that a mishap with a nuclear plant is far more impactful than some other source but the 2 you referred to were both avoidable. To some extent nuclear may be the lesser of the evils.

 

[Frankfooter]

You are obviously correct that a mishap with a nuclear plant is far more impactful than some other source but the 2 you referred to were both avoidable. To some extent nuclear may be the lesser of the evils.

They are always avoidable, even 3 mile Island.
Even best case scenario there is no plan yet, half a century later, to deal with the waste.

 

[JohnLarue]

That may be the case, I cannot compare danger from burning coal and nuclear plants.

However, the few accidents with nuclear power plants - Fukushima and Chernobyl - have been so horrible, that many have demanded an end to nuclear power. For good or bad, there are more democracy in Continental Europe than in North America, and politicians have to act on what the population want.

Well then
So you view nuclear as assuming unacceptable risk

yet
you say nuclear is part of the solution

This is really an off or on question as wind/ solar are a waste of resources and are unreliable
If you want to reduce emissions , the only option is Nuclear

The choice boils down to nuclear or emissions

since you are opposed to nuclear , you might consider taking a an indepth objective look at why you want to reduce emissions