cross-posted from: lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68257855
Nuclear is the best btw.
“Indestructible”?
#HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Thanks for the laugh, pal.
Spicy Air ☢️
Submitted 6 days ago by zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/0b820806-4f6b-454d-9d8c-ec91cbc398ec.webp
Comments
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 6 days ago
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc
Pretty much, yeah
HellieSkellie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
That video is strange marketing nonsense. Running a train doesn’t apply the same forces and wear-down as nature will, just ask your mother.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 5 days ago
In the 1990s, the NRC had to “take repeated actions to address defective welds on dry casks that led to cracks and quality assurance problems; helium had leaked into some casks, increasing temperatures and causing accelerated fuel corrosion”.[11]
With the zeroing of the federal budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada in 2011, more nuclear waste began being stored in dry casks. Many of these casks are stored in coastal or lakeside regions where a salt air environment exists, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology posited that corrosion in these environments could occur in 30 years or less, while the NRC was studying whether the casks could be used for 100 years as some hoped.[12]
Impervious to absolutely anything, except a little helium, or slightly salty air.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
And these will all be built by who? Corporations? You think they want to keep things safe or keep things cheap?
Even if this silly demonstration was a good example, the enshittification will begin almost immediately.
Its why every nuclear Superfund site to this day has not been addressed. Because there is money to be made in not really doing anything.
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
Nuclear is the best btw
Naw. I was once enrolled in an Energy/Climate-focussed Masters degree, and scientific consensus for the goal generally seemed to range from “mostly renewables + a tiny bit of nuclear” to “all renewables”. Nuclear feels like this amazing hack but it’s expensive, and the storage problem, while sometimes overstated, is also often understated or falsely misrepresented as solved.
jnod4@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
Enrolled in an energy/“climate-focused” masters degree funded by British Petrol. The only downside in nuclear is plants being a sensitive target in warfare.
Therms45@europe.pub 5 days ago
And earthquakes, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and floods, and any other unforeseen circumstance which will result in rising level of cancer and lowering life expectancy for generations in the centuries to come. But yes who cares?! Glowy thing go brrrrrrr!
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
Ah yes bp famously wants to replace all fossil fuels with renewables. good point /s
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 6 days ago
Get lost with your expensive nuclear energy. Renewables produce MUCH cheaper energy.
arrow74@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
If we didn’t fight Nuclear energy for decades we wouldn’t have been in half as much trouble as we are in now. But the oil companies won with their smear campaigns.
Renewable energy is cheaper now, but that wasn’t always the case. Also nuclear can be part of solving some of the issues with renewable energy. We can build massive battery banks and double our number of solar farms so that we have power when the sun goes down or we can reduce the need and incorporate nuclear
chris@l.roofo.cc 5 days ago
Nuclear is an either or situation. Either nuclear or renewables. It makes no sense to build a nuclear plant and not run it at 100%. They are way too expensive for that. That means your energy prices will not go down even though we have incredibly cheap energy available. Nuclear is not cheap, not renewable and obtaining the nuclear material another problem on it’s own.
timestatic@feddit.org 5 days ago
But for a stable network you need to account for times with no sun and no wind.
Therms45@europe.pub 4 days ago
If we had a stable and international network, there would be not a time without sun or wind.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 days ago
Nuclear is a bad fit for that, because it’s too expensive and has poor “reaction times” compared to other energy sources.
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Bruh i saw this trash of a bait post yesterday already.
Nobody with more than 3 brain cells is defending coal. But Nuclear is also shit (unless u have subs to run or nukes to build, and hence can use civil nuclear plants, refining, and mining to offload some of the military bill onto the backs of civilians).
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THAT WAS PROFITABLE THUOUT ITS WHOLE LIFE CIRCLE.
Take your god damn bait meme and shove it up your reactor pressure vessel.
suodrazah@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
What’s profit got to do with it?
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Because people call nuclear cheap, when it in reality isnt, they just cherry pick a smol time slot while ignoring states pumping money into it before and after main run time.
HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
Because I don’t waste my time (well, much) on trolls, I had AI provide a response in the tone I would have used. I’m sure you’ll AI is BS yada yada but meh. I thought it was good.
Your post is peak “I read a Vox article from 2015 and now I’m an expert” energy. • Nuclear is not “shit.” It’s the only proven, scalable, carbon-free baseload power we have. • The problem isn’t nuclear—it’s Western governments treating it like a political football instead of an industrial project. • If you think coal is bad but nuclear is worse, you’re objectively wrong. Coal kills 8 million people/year from air pollution. Nuclear has killed ~5,000 in 70 years (Chernobyl + Fukushima, mostly from Soviet incompetence and a tsunami). • Your “no profitable plants” claim is like saying “no Tesla has ever been profitable”—ignoring that the Model 3/Y now print money, and existing reactors are cash machines. Final Verdict: Your Take is Hot Garbage • Accuracy Rating: 2/10 (generous). • Spice Level: 8/10 (points for passion, but you’re swinging at shadows). • Reality Check: Nuclear is the most cost-effective low-carbon power source if you build it right. The West doesn’t, but that’s our failure, not the tech’s. Now go shove that up your reactor pressure vessel. 🔥
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
“I had AI provide a response”
i stopped reading right there, dont waste my time.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
I used to live near a city that got nuclear power. When the plant closed our costs rose 200-300%.
I don’t care if it’s profitable, it’s cheap as fuck for residents.
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
“i dont care about anyhting but my own time slot” attitude
bobo@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Ah, that must be why first world countries like France are trying to export their nuclear waste into third world countries, after they were forced to stop exporting it into Russia…
If it’s so safe, why have they been closing down every single high level waste permanent storage site over the last decade?
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
because ppl act over irrational fear and lobby their politicians to close perfectly safe sites.
bobo@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Riiiight people are protesting for no reason…
The French government has yet to authorize Cigéo’s construction, and now the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) have raised concerns about the design. Although it acknowledges overall progress, IRSN questions whether the sealing would be a strong enough barrier and says ANDRA needs to do more to reduce the risk of radioactive leaks. The agency also needs to improve its strategies to monitor risks and to rehabilitate the facility in case of radioactive spills, IRSN says. Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is medium-level radioactive sludge immobilized in bitumen, or tar, a technique introduced in the 1960s that has now been abandoned. IRSN says that in case of fire in a tunnel, bituminized waste could rapidly overheat and burn. “We would risk creating a phenomenon that we don’t know how to stop,” and trigger “a very substantial” release of radioactivity into the environment, says François Besnus, director of IRSN’s Environment Division in Fontenay-aux-Roses. Both agencies say ANDRA and the producers of nuclear waste need to study treatments that prevent overheating; if that fails, a major redesign of the facility may be needed.
…
Others say the risks are simply too high. Radiation will break down water in the rock and cause corrosion of metal structures, leading to the release of explosive hydrogen gas, says biologist and engineer Bertrand Thuillier, an associate professor at the University of Lille. ANDRA plans to ventilate the tunnels, but that could exacerbate fires by providing oxygen, he says. A failure could be catastrophic, Thuillier warns: The area around Bure helps provide eastern Paris with water and is close to one of the world’s most cherished wine regions, Champagne.
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 4 days ago
because it was evil green radioactive goo in simpsons
Zerush@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
Nonsense, fision energy is expensive and dangerous.
Only in Germany there are over 12.000 tons of radioactive waste and nobody knows where to stored it secure for the next 100.000 years. It’s depending on third countries to import the needed Uranium Indestructibles containers in a geological stable vault is a bad joke, it don’t exist, at least not enough for all the waste, not even for the already existing. A nuclear reactor has a life span of ~50 years max, after this it need to be eliminated, a process of over 10 years for descontamination and elimination of more radioactive waste with a cost of billions of $, paid by the country, as said, by you, not by the company. Means 50 years energy and >50.000 years problems. Nuclear is the best, but only if we have an working fusion reactor, means, maybe in 10-20 years. Meanwhile the fision energy is sponsored by certain lobbies and the weapon industry, they are the real reason.
In Spain the energy costs for the user are ~14 cts/kWh at some hours even free (the lowest costs in the EU), thanks to the intensive use of renevable energy, blocked often by fossil and nuclear lobbies in other countries.
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
Two things can be true.
Nuclear energy can be prohibitively expensive and impractical and have a massive storage problem. And fossil energy can still be even worse with externalities.
My 2 cents:
For the case of Germany, yeah it would be batshit crazy to build new nuclear reactors right now. Completely irrational. But turning off the existing ones prematurely was a grandiose idiot move and here we are still mining brown coal. People hold up the “but the nuclear plants that got shut down were replaced with renewables, not coal”. Yeah, well those renewables were supposed to replace the coal.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 5 days ago
FFS, no one ever argues that we should replace nuclear energy with fossils, except for the damn fossil fuel companies that are apparently running most governments. Why even bring it up?
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 5 days ago
The German situation is (as usually) especially frustrating since it comes down to the right-wingers cashing on a moment of high uncertainty for a bit of popular support and they have since then both sabotaged renewable energy and blamed the nuclear exit on other parties.
Zerush@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
It’s undestandable to use existing Reaktors some years more, because closing them, as explained, is an even bigger mess with inacceptable costs. The consquences of an Hype promoted by Lobbies, without any thoughts and planning about, like selling expensive cars without brakes.
Therms45@europe.pub 5 days ago
pro-nuke when you tell them nuclear energy is fossil fuel energy: 😡
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
it isn’t tough, fossil fuel implies hydrocarbons, as that’s where the fossil part comes from.
Nuclear fuel is non renewable but it is also clean.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 5 days ago
It’s clean regarding chemical waste.
I’ve helped build nuclear waste caskets, nothing is perfect but the amount of attention put into making it safe is incredible! The layers (and quality) of stainless steel welds would put your average steel bridge to shame…
But fission will always be limited (as in non-renewable). If everything was powered by nuclear, I’m sure we’d see even more awefull mining operations. Also, fusion should in theory be much better, if the thermodynamics of it end up working.
LilithElina@literature.cafe 4 days ago
This is a joke, right? I grew up near one of those “safe” underground disposals and it’s a disaster. Why risk that when there are so mich cleaner optional available today?
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 4 days ago
nuclear waste vs lead and iron
cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
Nuclear is the best btw.
What’s the LCoE of new nuclear? What’s the LCoE when you add the cost of the storage mentioned in your meme?
Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Nuclear has been artificially made way more expensive than it should be.
For one part, why is it the only energy source that has to take care of its waste? (LCOE includes this cost, and I’m not saying they shouldn’t, I’m saying other sources should too.) Coal can spew waste out (including radioactive waste) and they don’t have to handle it. Wind just throws out blades and doesn’t have to deal with them. Etc.
The insane strictness on designs and safety are also far higher than they should be. A lot of its based on a linear no threshold model of radiation safety, which has been disproven., which dramatically increases costs.
Even still, LCOE for nuclear is pretty competitive in the US, and the US is one of the worst places for nuclear, as our dirty energy companies have easily been able to purchase laws to increase the cost of nuclear, so they can’t compete as much. Sort this by LCOE and see how many cheap nuclear is for most nations.
Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
I didn’t realize anti nuclear was so widespread. You are all propagandized to such a degree that I’m surprised you aren’t defending clean coal.
Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 6 days ago
Tbf I feel like we’re reaching a point now where you do have to look at reality and accept it just isn’t happening. Consider the spiralling budgets and schedules of recent nuclear build outs and compare to what’s been happening in the renewables/batteries space.
To be as generous as possible, maybe, with absolutely perfect project management, nuclear could compete. Maybe. But we just don’t have that. This is capitalism, and there is no way to make nuclear viable under this system.
Morphit@feddit.uk 5 days ago
This is capitalism, and there is no way to make nuclear viable under this system.
There’s a path dependency to that statement. So many things could have gone differently through history that could have led to a thriving nuclear power sector. There’s a lot of interest in new nuclear so clearly some people think it can work even within the strain of capitalism we have now.
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 5 days ago
no u
Therms45@europe.pub 5 days ago
Calling us propagandised while pro-nukes are the ones saying shit like “solar panels are expensive and require specialised maintenance” (both lies)
zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
They’re gonna wash it!
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
I’m surprised by all the angry comments of people on this thread, people don’t realize the true potential modern nuclear energy has, to produce a lot of energy and just right besides where that energy is needed, one of the biggest problems of renewables is that you don’t get to choose where they are produced, so in most cases it implies transmission lines, very high capacity ones and very long ones, my country recently had a country wide outage caused by the failure of one of those that caused a cascading failure.
I’m not saying that renewables aren’t incredible tech, they are, they really do, like they’re one of the best sources of energy available, but they aren’t perfect, and them being complemented with nuclear would do a big deal of good, as I said before nuclear has it’s own unique strengths that can help out a lot.
And also I see a lot of people here talking from outright ignorance about the state of the arts of the tech, it has advanced a lot since the 1950’s lol, and repeat the same arguments, forever debunked, people do about nuclear that frustrating, Fukushima and Chernobyl were both plants with stupidly old tech, run by clowns and ignoring really well known risks for the sake of the lulz, even when all nuclear accidents combined, the tech has killed a fraction of people than what hidro has killed, modern tech is heaps more advanced and has included everything needed for that sort of accident to be impossible, even nuclear waste is a solved problem, the only thing stopping it from fully materializing is political will (Altough is kind of a blessing in hiding because now tech to use spent fuel seems to be the future also).
IDK, people do disappoint on their ignorance.
Akrenion@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
Which country was that? I am only aware of the large outage in southern Europe which was due to fossil plants not following regulations.
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
chile lol, it was a crazy experience it lasted long enough for the cell network to fail, I was fortunately in home but it was chaotic for people going home at the time, the goverment ordered a curfew to be had at night so people also were in a hurry, and it was quite a thing lol, I only had the radio left to inform myself on what was happening and it was crazy stuff hearing how they talked about the efforts to cold start the grid back again, they had to do like 3 attempts before success, “the Rapel dam is on maximum power, trying to provide energy to x power plan who then may be able to provide energy to…”
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 5 days ago
I’m surprised by all the angry comments period.
I thought this was a meme instance lol, I never took it as a prompt for serious debate on fossil fuels vs nuclear energy (as if there are zero clean alternatives)
Johanno@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
I did not read your full post.
But I am pro nuclear energy, IF(that is a big IF) IF it is cheaper than renewable alternatives.
Currently not even buying the uranium is really cost efficient in comparison.
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 5 days ago
Nuclear fuel is a kind of fossil fuel
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
it literally isn’t, why people are saying this? the fossil part comes from being, well fossilized organic material, hence hidrocarbon rich, nuclear isn’t tthat, it’s not renewable but is clean energy.
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 5 days ago
Fizz@lemmy.nz 5 days ago
I think the average person vastly over estimates how much waste is produced. If I recall the stat was that the entire world’s nuclear waste could fit in a football field. That’s really tiny.
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 5 days ago
Lmfaoooo quality meme
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 5 days ago
Wow, I am truly surprised by the amount of angry comments this meme generated lol
Am I the only one that read this in the tongue-in-cheek “checkmate, atheists” tone because it looked like an intentional strawman argument?
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
honestly, IDK how much of a strawman it is, Germany literally replaced nuclear with coal.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
I would love to ask everyone who opposes nuclear power one question. It’s a really simple question, you can Google it. I’ve never had an opponent of nuclear power answer the question, because it brings everything into perspective.
How much spent nuclear fuel is there in the entire world? What is the total amount of long term waste that the entire history of nuclear power generation has created? If you piled it up, how big of a pile would it form?
Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 6 days ago
As you said: easy to answer, so not worth it to engage with seriously.
So let me counter ask you a very similar question: how much radioactive material (weight or volume, your choice) do you think was spread in Chernobyl, that made it still a closed off region today and resulted in ongoing increased radioactive levels in mushrooms and wild boar meat in multiple regions over central Europe, that it is still not considered safe for human consumption?
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
Renewables have killed more people than all nuclear accidents combined tough, mostly hidro failures, but also a fair share of industrial accidents with the usual ones.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
So let me counter ask you a very similar question: how much radioactive material (weight or volume, your choice) do you think was spread in Chernobyl,
Some 60 tons of reactor fuel were expelled “locally”. That wasn’t easy to Google, but easily to convert back from the radiation released. I might be a bit high due to iodine being released which isn’t part of the fuel.
Thanks for once again proving my point. As soon as I point out how nuclear waste isn’t actually a real problem, opponents of nuclear power tend to immediately move the goalposts, without actually answering the question too.
But the preemptively adress your moved goalpost:
That might be flippant, but does this matter at all? You might as well say solar panels are deadly because some idiot didn’t tie his safety line while installing rooftop solar panels. Or some DIYer wired the electrics wrong and burned their house down. People have died from solar panels, so using your logic, solar panels might at any moment strike and kill someone!
It doesn’t work like that. Solar panels are entirely safe when used properly. Nuclear is entirely safe when you don’t intentionally build a gigantic bombs and then intentionally push it past all limits and override all safeties. No electricity reactor before or after Chernobyl has been capable of failing this way, it was literally uniquely terrible.
uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 6 days ago
Is your point supposed to be “it would be a relatively small pile of radioactive waste”? There aren’t all that many nuclear power plants in the world because it never has been economically viable.
M137@lemmy.today 5 days ago
BREATHE*
More and more words are apparently becoming to hard to use correctly for a big part of people online. This is one that I almost never saw anyone getting wrong until a couple of years ago and it’s becoming more and more common, same with writing “cloth/cloths” instead of “clothe/clothes”. It’s infuriating.
zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Only for grammar Facists. You know what people mean,
Thordros@hexbear.net 6 days ago
This would have been a great meme 50 years ago^[Side-note: a Spongebob meme would have really fucked people up in 1976.]. We already knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change was caused by human fossil fuel consumption. At the time, a hard pivot to nuclear power would have been a great way to kick the can down the road for a few decades until we figured out a better idea.
Well, it’s a few decades later now. We came up with a lot of better ideas since then. Solar, wind, and geothermal are ascendant. And they don’t have nearly as many downsides as nuclear and hydro.
justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
Facepalm
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 6 days ago
Why can’t both be accurate?
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 6 days ago
reksas@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
doesnt coal emissions have some radiation in it too?
rmuk@feddit.uk 4 days ago
IIRC, coal and gas plants give off more radiation per kWh than nuclear, it’s just that they dump it into the atmosphere along with millions of tonnes of other far more dangerous material.
far_university1990@reddthat.com 3 days ago
Why people here argue about cost or energy potential or resource mine of nuclear? Meme only about fossil waste extremely normalized?
Venator@lemmy.nz 5 days ago
the extra carbon monoxide helps him sleep forever.
Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
Forcing nuclear down our throats while renewables are a thing is so wild. And people actually defend nuclear.
You want mining of sparse minerals by workers in inhuman conditions? Check
You want a contamination which will exist for longer than the oldest human build structure? Check (because the barrels you made made indestructible, just dont test this pls)
You want centralized energy way more expansive than solar or wind? Check
There are literally no upsides of nuclear against renewables and a battery.
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 5 days ago
Bruh.
Nuclear is capable of generating a ton of energy right besides where is used, renewables have to be transmitted absurdly long distances in most cases.
And mining is every day more automated, sending robots to dig down the materials, and even then, is not like renewables don’t need mining also lol.
And yes, they test it, here they’re smashing a train full speed to one of the canisters to test it’s safety
Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
Bruh
Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries. Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all compared is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces in terms of mining needed shows the absurdity of your argument
Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.
Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties…I dont even know where to start with this “argument” its bs on so many levels
Therms45@europe.pub 5 days ago
That’s beside the point. Nuclear isn’t sustainable on the long run, period.
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 5 days ago
It’s a ploy to keep power in the hands of corporations and the bourgeois state. And in some cases the vision is to give the ultra rich nuclear (weapons) capabilities.
Therms45@europe.pub 4 days ago
So are you saying energy from solar panels cannot be used right from the roof of the house where it’s being generatesd? Do you even listen to yourself lol
starik@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Not true. Nuclear works 24/7 without the need for battery storage and the cost and environmental damage associated with manufacturing batteries. Plus, it can be dialed up and down in response to demand.
We need to use all available tools to replace fossil fuels ASAP. Renewables and nuclear.
Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
You got mislead my dude. Probably because there’s lot of propaganda for nuclear as it is needed to offload costs of building nuclear weapons, so especially USA, France and China are campaigning hard.
We dont need another finite fossil resource oligarchs can use to control us, we need to change societies habits so it complies with energy production. For the actually relevant parts its easy enough to store the energy. Batteries are not the only possibility, water elevation, hydrogen, pressure cells just to name a few. But even if batteries were the only ones, it’s still worth manufacturing them compared to the costs of managing nuclear waste for timescales longer than human build structures exists.
Did a medieval person know what wages today would be? No Do you know what the nuclear end storage would cost in 1000 years? No But even for the time we can for see, in the best case scenario its an economically bad decission, in the worst case we poison the whole planet to a degree where no human life can exist.
SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 4 days ago
Where’s an example for an operating nuclear power-plant that can be dialed down to match demand?
Afaik they have lots of momentum (for days even), and even their propenents argue for them being critical for providing a base supply^1^. Never have I heard anyone claiming they’d be good for matching fluctuating demand. Can you back that up?
Or are you getting your anti-reneweblaes lobbying talking points mixed up? That argument is usually used for natural gas plants.
^1^ which doesn’t make sense in a renewables dominated grid.