The thing with nuclear is that its timescale is too big. We can't wait the decade for new plants or to bring SMRs to volume. In that time.we can absolutely cover everything with solar, add wind turbines, and invest in grid-level storage. By the time nuclear would come online, we could already have zero carbon energy with zero nuclear waste.
Solar, in Canada. You really need to watch the video that you're supposedly responding to, here's a Youtube link with the same video in case that's of your preference https://youtu.be/8rcMwmGuGSo
Yep, solar in Canada. I've had 10kW on my roof for 8 years, solar in Canada is viable. And getting moreso every time the price drops, which it keeps doing.
2033!?!? WTF? Renewable energy is dropping in price so fast, there won't be a need for it at all in 2033. Not that it will actually be built by then, it'll go into cost overruns, trying to get more capital to build, etc... It'll be 2050 before it's done, and the only people that will benefit are contractors and developers. It will only serve to raise the price of electricity, and cause a potential disaster area.
Liquid lead cooling? Yeah, that can't possibly go wrong... /s
We've been hearing this for many years now. I've lost count. Reality is that countries where renewables dominate, like Germany, have a significantly higher energy bill for consumers than countries where nuclear is part of the mix.
Liquid lead cooling? Yeah, that can’t possibly go wrong…
Serious question: what exactly do you think can 'go wrong' with lead-cooled fast reactors?
Burning lead is bad, therefore you can't use it as a coolant in a closed cycle. Why yes, I have 0.5mg per liter of lead in my blood, how could you tell?
Nuclear Energy
Top