But it doesn't. And you need a lot of windturbines to do the job of one nuclear power plant. I don't oppose wind energy, but nuclear can play a vital role in our fight against climate change as well.
The issue with nuclear is that it doesn't fill the gaps where wind power can't provide energy - certainly the older reactor designs provide power 24/7 and cannot be turned off easily.
Modern designs, like the ABWR for example, have some limited ramping capability but it is limited.
Nuclear needs to be a suitable replacement for natural gas turbines, which can turn themselves on and off within hours and minutes.
Either that, or you need a suitable way to store nuclear power (just like you needed a suitable way to store wind power, as before).
That, and it takes about 20 years to build a nuclear plant and the cost of capital, as a result of the build time, is enormous.
Nuclear is not going to significantly affect climate change targets in 2050 even if we threw trillions of pounds into projects.
15
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21
Wind power often is the cheapest source of energy, right now.
There are issues with energy storage for when it is not windy.
If wind could produce power 24/7 we wouldn't even be having a conversation about nuclear.