There may be storage options, but nuclear does not need it.
Solar and wind on the other hand definitely needs it.
Whatever you say they are intermittent energy sources and therefore cannot be more reliable.
It is more important to provide reliable power. Nuclear is both reliable and clean.
Eversource says costs at the plants do not affect its current electric rates, and ratepayers haven’t been paying for expenses for the local storage sites for a long time.
Eversource says costs at the plants do not affect its current electric rates, and ratepayers haven’t been paying for expenses for the local storage sites for a long time.
And they have been around since the 50s. 3 accidents.
I say the risks are acceptable.
Also the power generation nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel enrichment for weapons are different processes/reactors.
Here is a comparison table I put together on ChatGPT on a binary scale. Nuclear wins out.
And they have been around since the 50s. 3 accidents.
I say the risks are acceptable.
Also the power generation nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel enrichment for weapons are different processes/reactors.
Here is a comparison table I put together on ChatGPT on a binary scale. Nuclear wins out. View attachment 416893
In the context of new nuclear versus new renewable generation output, the data shows a significant disparity in the projected contributions over the next decade:
New Nuclear Generation: In the United States, new nuclear plants are expected to add approximately 5.6 GW of capacity over the next 10 years.3 This is a relatively small increase, considering the long construction times and high costs associated with nuclear power plants.
New Renewable Generation: In contrast, renewables are projected to add a much larger capacity. Over the next 10 years, the U.S. is expected to add around 131 GW of renewable capacity, which is significantly higher than the 5.6 GW from nuclear.3 This includes contributions from solar, wind, and other renewable sources.