This is a (slightly older) article about Nuclear Energy and climate change. It’s a hottly debated topic in climate communities, so I thought some of you would enjoy to read it.
Another article that brings up some more points against nuclear power can be found here.
I’d be interested what you ppl think of the matter.
Wind turbines and solar power is something that produces enough energy. The thing is that it needs to be set up and brought into the system. Most Windparks for examples aren’t hooked up to the network.
But these are not baseline. They are dependent on wind speed. It’s not enough to have enough energy. You need to have energy when you need it. And storage is for now too expensive.
The average wind speed over all of North America or all of Africa etc. is quite constant year round.
Sources of your claim?
USA, for example: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.02.25/chart2.png
Generating fluctuates between 20something and 30something % of the maximum installed capacity. The larger the area, the more the curve flattens.
Ok, but this is a monthly average, not daily or even hourly. It means that there might be times during the day or even whole days without (enough) wind.
Days without (enough) wind across the entire continent? Have you got any sources that show that this has ever happened?
If you really want to convince me that wind power can fully replace fossil fuels, it should be you proving that there can be no time when wind output lets the grid down. The US grid can absorb up to 700 GWh during some times of the year. If you have one day at 1000 GWh and the following day at 500GWh, you’ll have brownouts throughout the US.
And it’s not just about days. One hour without electricity in the whole continental US would be a national disaster.
Even the UN admits that decarbonization goals without nuclear power “will not be met” in Europe.
It’s up to you to prove them wrong.
It’s not only wind, you know? There’s solar, there’s storage, and better grid management and integration.