There are very very very few nations that could not serve their needs with renewable electricity. The UK was thought to be one of the more challenging countries, but recent offshore wind developments will make cheap power abundant soon.
Japan may have a difficult time, which is why they have been so fond of hydrogen, but I have a feeling that they may find some other solutions. Deep-sea floating turbines are falling in price all the time.
> Japan may have a difficult time, which is why they have been so fond of hydrogen, but I have a feeling that they may find some other solutions. Deep-sea floating turbines are falling in price all the time.
I think we need a bit more than feelings and faith to solve climate change. Nuclear buys us time to work out the issues with renewable energy, as long as it takes. And in certain cases, it just might not. That's the nature of renewable energy, much like oil deposits or rare-earth deposits aren't available everywhere in the world.
If you want to go on more than feelings, then look at the data. Floating wind is falling cost all the time. Nuclear's cost is going up all the time.
"Feelings" are the only reason people think nuclear is possible. Those that have been trying it in the past decade have shown it to not be competitive.
Usually HN is good at thinking like engineers, but for some reason nuclear seems to get very little critical thought, and renewables get very little consideration for their actual reality.
There is not a carbon-free grid model out there that uses nuclear except as a tiny tiny fraction of grid power. Literally none!! Yet somehow comments about needing to build lots of nuclear get treated as serious statements that could hold some water. Nuclear will not be the backbone of any future grid for at least 50 years, and most likely never again in human history.
If you want critical thought, you respond to the point that renewables take longer to develop (the infra not the tech), and that nuclear "buys us time".
> There is not a carbon-free grid model out there that uses nuclear
and in what timescale can these carbon-free models be developed? We probably need a carbon-negative model to reverse existing CO2 damage.
> Nuclear will not be the backbone of any future grid for at least 50 years
France has declared it will wants to cut nuclear to 50% of the grid by 2035, it's current share is 70%. So what does this statement mean?
> Floating wind is falling cost all the time. Nuclear's cost is going up all the time.
The cost of energy production, or the total cost of infra?
Part of the reason nuclear is growing is lack of funding. Turns out, you need to keep building nuclear power stations for people to think a degree in nuclear engineering is a good idea. And you need to keep building them to keep power-plant-building corps in business and innovating/improving efficiency.
Japan may have a difficult time, which is why they have been so fond of hydrogen, but I have a feeling that they may find some other solutions. Deep-sea floating turbines are falling in price all the time.