https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&...
EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information sharing.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illusion. Nuclear is now a dead technology walking. And renewables (and associated technologies like batteries and electrolyzers) continue to show cost declines at a rate nuclear could only dream of.
BTW, summarize the argument in the video. I don't waste my time watching video links.
If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.
Proposed new offshore wind farms cost £40/MWh, operational from 2023/2024
Nuclear was the answer 15 years ago. It's not now.
Battery storage is possibly going to fit in there, but it doesn't do it yet.
Tidal, ground source, gravity/momentum/compression/latent-heat storage solutions, some of these might do.
I think we need at least one more cycle of Nuclear power plants.
Perhaps then we'll have workable fission.
