NukeWorker Forum

News and Discussions => Nuke News => Topic started by: Marlin on Oct 01, 2021, 01:38

Title: Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0
Post by: Marlin on Oct 01, 2021, 01:38
Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0


https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/09/28/renewables-vs-nuclear-256-0/
Title: Re: Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0
Post by: hamsamich on Oct 01, 2021, 02:27
Isn't it funny when articles compare generating capacity instead of the actual amount of electricity generated?  If you read this article it is a typical article touting renewables without delving into storage, capacity factors and other unrealisitc comparisons...I could go on and on but won't. And of course it found a way to mention chernobyl and criminal activity related to nuclear power...I'm surprised they don't have a picture of Hiroshima devastation near the caption  Funny. 
Title: Re: Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0
Post by: Marlin on Oct 01, 2021, 03:32
Quote from: hamsamich on Oct 01, 2021, 02:27
Isn't it funny when articles compare generating capacity instead of the actual amount of electricity generated?  If you read this article it is a typical article touting renewables without delving into storage, capacity factors and other unrealisitc comparisons...I could go on and on but won't. And of course it found a way to mention chernobyl and criminal activity related to nuclear power...I'm surprised they don't have a picture of Hiroshima devastation near the caption  Funny. 

PV Magazine is a photovoltaics monthly publication. Their slant should not be surprising. But I agree the green crowd does not include capacity factors.


(https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_width/public/2021-03/CapacityFactor2020-1200x675.png?itok=yuBHBMgM)


https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
Title: Re: Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0
Post by: hamsamich on Oct 01, 2021, 05:38
Yeah I didn't even catch that!  Makes more sense now.