Personally I think Nuclear is not what we need as I've explained. Sure keep the old ones running but new ones do not make sense. We could invest the money far better and end up in a better situation sooner.

> when solar stops needing massive amounts of land

Building solar in fields in the UK will probably always be stupid. However it still has plenty of places where it makes sense.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

I think this is clutching at straws. Sure solar/wind are not truly renewable but they have an external energy source (the sun) outside our planetary sphere. Nuclear does not get this top up.

> Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.

There are some nice heat storage ideas as well as some gas pressurisation/liquification ones that have real potential. Plus odd ball things like flywheels. We can probably come up with better ones. Pumped hydro needs geology we are lacking for anything big. Batteries tend to be expensive due to materials but we may have some options here.

Energy storage is what we really need. Once we get that then most arguments against renewables are dead.

We also need to invest in energy movement (the grid) because this is not up to task. We have to close down energy generation regularly due to this. Also it should be simple for small providers (including individuals) to be able to feed power into the grid.

> First of all, nuclear energy is renewable.

How do you work this out? Do you know what renewable means? We extract energy from the fuel it doesn't come back it is used.

So how long do you think nuclear takes to build?

Do you think they provide cost effective energy?

Why can renewables not fill this need?

If storage is your answer then do you believe this cannot be fixed quicker than building nuclear?

> My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation.

It is better to replace coal now than in 15+ years time. Nuclear is super slow to get on line with huge upfront and afterlife costs.

Nuclear is not a short term solution. The plants take decades to build plus there isn't that much fuel. The price of power is expensive and decommissioning is a huge cost offset into the future.

Renewables are quick to build and provide cheap power. Big oil likes the idea that renewables are unreliable and nuclear is part of this myth. What we need is investment in storage and distribution because that is our problem. We can have cheap energy with low profits companies do not like low profits for a reason.

> Thorium.

Are we actually generating any power with this yet?

It is estimated that there is enough Uranium fuel for an additional 200-400 NPPs This is not really going to make a huge difference. In the time it takes to build a NPP we would do better to be investing in stored power. There are many ideas here and building a variety of them at a small but usable scale would allow us to find which ones are effective and start building some full scale implementations.

Building NPPs will not bring us a fast solution, will be expensive, and distracts us from the actual issues.

There may be some niche places where it works but these are few and far between.

I'm convinced the renewed love for nuclear is just pushed by the oil lobby to try to prevent renewables - nuclear doesn't make sense if you look at the hard details.

> has other fish to fry right now.

They were poaching the fish

It is a stupid move - it will take decades to produce power and be expensive - there are far better investments to make with quicker and higher returns.

Nuclear is not the solution people think it is because we don't have enough fuel for it to work on a scale large enough to make a real difference. There are also some environmental/security concerns too.