Oof compositing*

I see.

When you say "routine nuke output" are you talking about the reactor directly or ambient outside the facility?

Maybe this is coming from a lack of knowledge but nukes boil water. Just turn off some turbines? Slowing down the reaction maybe takes longer sure.

But if you wanna use battery storage then we're doing lithium mining. Besides the eyesore I'm ok with a nuclear plant over a coal plant in my yard for sure. Hell just the coal radioactivity will kill me before the nuke plant.

For now we'll just dream of fusion power I guess.

I'll quickly add, hydro often turns whole valleys into lakes/reservoirs. Do you want to count flooded landscapes in our "sacrificial zones" list?

I mean that power storage is hard in general. Nuclear provides on demand power without overproduction.

Pv cells need silicon, and glass which requires a lot of energy to produce. Are those sacrificial zones too? All power generation is going to take materials. Nuclear is still better than coal.

Right, I'm blind. And agreed.

Oh my bad. I didn't realize the timespan.

I will say however this does not take into account how much more power the world consumes now compared to 2000. So our detractor friend above is still off base.

I'm also seeing conflicting numbers on my own search. Anywhere between like 15% to 30%.

Nuclear has a high initial investment sure. But you're ignoring that nuclear has a smaller physical footprint as far as facility size to energy generated. It also generates a static load whereas other low carbon options don't. It's why we still have coal and gas. Nuclear would do that job.

In 2000 35% of global power was low carbon? Got the source on that?

Maybe they're just distancing themselves from THAT Diddy.

Imagine thinking that it's corpo greed for a purely entertainment item. It's worth what people will pay, and they will. This is a LUXURY good. Be mad about private telecoms and power companies that provide NECESSITIES and I'll join you in the streets.