https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ieI0sSSXRKjbPEqzMWJFLiqIckMw?docId=09e97e2c-51da-41fb-81bd-98f8379e4480&hl=en

Solar (of all flavors) will be THE energy source of the future…

We laugh at your ignorance….

(Obviously a 100% solar grid is not the best approach. Combining solar, wind and other renewables is the smartest route.)

My last comment (that I pasted from a law professional in caps) basically sums it up. New and safer nuclear is not yet supported within the constraints of the LAW, not of technology and thus will not be built in the very near future.

However, from a tech pov, there is no Earth shattering reason for the (melt down proof) reactor designs to not be pursued, once the law is cleared for serious coal replacement.

After reading that pdf, I will now fight even harder to get everybody to realize how important the molten salt reactor (and similar) really can be and promote such favorable laws! I really like the idea of the IFR’s ability to recycle LWR spent fuel, despite the fact that there was an accident back in the pioneering days.

There has been many more fossil fuels related accidents per TWh, thus the basis for my reasoning… Nuclear is better than FF’s (and even better for electrifying entire planetary civilizations).

I will now refrain from commenting from here on out as I realize that there is NO room for ANY kind of fission concepts (proven or not) on your(?) website. If this is not your website, then I will gladly continue to comment

Anyways, keep up the good work on promoting wind and solar… With 7,000,000,000 people on this planet, I’m sure there’s room for all three!

You need to get past the point of nuclear = magic.

Nuclear is expensive. Small reactors are almost certainly more expensive than large reactors.

Many of the whiz-bang nuclear ideas are unproven and could not be proven out for many years. And none of them seem to promise affordable energy, they deal only with meltdown danger.

Let not your brain be so open that the facts don’t stick. We’re having to tell you the same things over and over and over.

Best to deploy as much solar, wind and melt down proof nuclear to displace most coal, and oil (and use electric cars).

Speaking of melt down proof reactors such as the molten salt reactor, that “trillion dollar eco disaster” would never had happened!

So…let’s try out this MSR idea (it’s been proven safe because they actually turned OFF the power every weekend at the MSRE in Oak Ridge). The worst that could happen is a wacko flys a jet at it and the salts cool down (because it would be built to withstand the impact, but power would be pulled for safety evaluation)… power shuts off… and here is the worst LOTS of NG, coal or other fossil fuel is again used to displace it at night when the sun is down.

You see, I agree with you for the time being, just not in the long run because there is no reason (other than politics and money) to burn fossil fuels when there are melt down proof concepts to back up solar and wind.

~Let our minds not be so open as to spill the brains… but not so closed to prevent new possibility~

This is the “figure out storage” phase. We’ll add small amounts of what looks promising and see how it works out. See how we can reduce the price.

Storage right now is mainly going toward grid firming. A modest amount of battery storage could take a large amount of “spinning reserve” off the grid and save a lot of fossil fuel burning. And we need some storage at the wind/solar farm level so that they can see a 15 minute block of their own power without have to go to the peaking market and purchase expensive power if the wind unexpectedly drops or a cloud drifts over.

We’re a long way from need storage to move wind/solar from one day to the next. We can use all we are capable of producing as it is produced most of the time. The few times/hours we curtail wind aren’t enough to pay for even cheap storage.

Ok, you made me see that we don’t need “terrawatts” of storage… but we still need on the order of a thousand times the battery storage you mentioned (and we need it cheap).

We can not wait for storage, either… we need it as soon as PV and wind fills in, and then “lets down” the grid (a very high probability without planned machine automation for such storage).

Please show your math.

RE: the nuclear idea. It’s just an idea. Nothing like this has been built. It would probably take more than a decade to design and build a test reactor. Then, if it worked perfectly, another decade before we could build more than a handful more.

We need to have coal and much of the natural gas off our grids within the next 20 years. We can’t wait around to see if an idea works. Many simply do not.