BS.
We need carbon extraction plants and Nuclear power to reverse the changes we are making to the planet.
We need carbon extraction plants and Nuclear power to reverse the changes we are making to the planet.
Most experts FactCheck.org contacted, including those who think nuclear power should remain an option, said that from a technical perspective, nuclear is not needed to decarbonize the grid.
But technically possible is not the same as practically feasible, or the most cost-effective. In that regard, many, although not all, researchers say nuclear — or something like it — is likely to be necessary to some degree. And even if nuclear is ultimately not needed, they say, the safer strategy is not to exclude it.
Here is the article: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/what-does-science-say-abou...
But nuclear is not well suited to filling in those gaps. The firming source that makes more sense is hydrogen burned in combined cycle plants (which cost about $1/W, vs $10/W for a nuclear plant). The hydrogen would be made with excess renewables during times of plenty and stored underground, just as natural gas is stored today. With this storage technology (as well as batteries and the like for diurnal storage) renewables provide "synthetic baseload" supply and will likely do it at a cost that nuclear will find difficult to match.
The relevant technological advance here has been low cost electrolyzers, suitable for use with intermittent power sources. These have been getting cheaper quite rapidly, and money is being pumped in to drive them down their experience curves just as PV and wind were driven down theirs previously.
Any additional sources of storage and demand smoothing (transmission, industrial thermal storage, large scale production of synfuels, intermittent CO2 capture) tilts the balance toward renewables as well.
Nuclear provides an answer to capturing hydrogen in a carbon friendly way.