• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If y’all were really worried about base load power, you’d be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.

    Ah there it is. Another anti-nuclear shill for the fossil fuel industry. Sprinkling nebulous “economic” claims.
    Storage at grid scale doesn’t exist, and probably never will, but natural gas peak plants exist today and are extremely lucrative for the fossil fuel industry. Every watt of solar or wind has a built in fossil fuel component that is necessary for grid stability. Nuclear eliminates the fossil fuel component, why would you be against that?

    The purpose of nuclear power is zero-carbon emissions. That is the most important part. The economic value of them is secondary.

    • skibidi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      You clearly didn’t comprehend what I wrote. Educate yourself on this topic - not from forum arguments, but from TEA and policy papers.

      For one, I said ‘base load’ generation isn’t needed. Your thinking that is is means your thinking on the matter is 10 years out of date. If you insist base load is needed, then gas plants and carbon capture systems are far cheaper and faster to build.

      You don’t care, though, as you aren’t seriously involved in the policy and just want to live in a world where you are right 🤷.