I find this an interesting discussion, and hope that it will continue.
My own knowledge of this domain is very limited. I’ll just mention some points from World Without End (WWE)… not because I endorse them, but to keep the discussion going:
Because of low energy density, wind and solar require 1-2 orders of magnitude more land use, metal, and concrete per kWh than nuclear power. EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested) is worse.
If batteries are used, the numbers become even worse; also greenhouse has emissions go up. WWE claims nuclear electricity emits about 6g CO2/kWh; wind 10g, battery storage +50g
Intermittency is important. According to WWE, it is harder to mitigate than you suggest, since mitigations increase cost.
Because of intermittency, wind and solar are typically complemented by power that is highly flexible (gas, coal, not nuclear). This means their impact on the climate isn’t all good, since they prevent phasing out gas and coal.
I find this an interesting discussion, and hope that it will continue.
My own knowledge of this domain is very limited. I’ll just mention some points from World Without End (WWE)… not because I endorse them, but to keep the discussion going:
Because of low energy density, wind and solar require 1-2 orders of magnitude more land use, metal, and concrete per kWh than nuclear power. EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested) is worse.
If batteries are used, the numbers become even worse; also greenhouse has emissions go up. WWE claims nuclear electricity emits about 6g CO2/kWh; wind 10g, battery storage +50g
Intermittency is important. According to WWE, it is harder to mitigate than you suggest, since mitigations increase cost.
Because of intermittency, wind and solar are typically complemented by power that is highly flexible (gas, coal, not nuclear). This means their impact on the climate isn’t all good, since they prevent phasing out gas and coal.