Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NoMoLerking t1_ivfsryd wrote

Reply to comment by langjie in Why is National Grid increasing rates by 64% by oceansofmyancestors

It’s pretty obvious we need some kind of stable, low-carbon energy source for the 40-50% of capacity that’s just always on. And I’m talking for the whole country, not just here. Nuclear is the only option. Sorry but it just is. The sooner we come to grips with that fact the better.

63

PtrWalnuts t1_ivhbcny wrote

It's not the only option but we should certainly start looking at it again.

5

g_rich t1_ivics77 wrote

The problem with nuclear is that it takes decades and billions to build a nuclear power plant and there is a lot of risk because even with that investment there is the real chance that you could end up with a power plant that never goes online.

Most people agree that nuclear would solve a lot of our energy problems but there is a lot of not in my backyard for both the power plants and the wast which just compounds the problems I described above. The reality is unless there is a fundamental change in the way we build and operate nuclear power plants that both makes them safer and significantly less expensive to build then we are unlikely to see any new plants come online any time soon. We would be better off investing that time and money into wind, and solar along with grid level energy storage.

3

Expendable95 t1_ivjacyd wrote

The best system that’s been proposed is many smaller (and less expensive) nuclear power plants with some online constantly and others that can spool up in a few days (not over a week like big plants) to meet demand, say before a heat wave or cold spell.

2