> Producing low-carbon fuels like hydrogen, methanol, or renewable synthetic methane for use in power plants, vehicles, or industry would require yet even more expansive deployment of renewables and storage to power the requisite electrolyzers and carbon capture facilities.
That's a weird paragraph for a nuclear booster.
Is he dismissing these ideas entirely, or is very poorly communicating the idea that nuclear is better for these purposes?
That would be an honest argument, if he made it. But it feels like he's trying to imply these are somehow only required for renewables grids, but not nuclear grids which will what, just burn fossil oil instead?
Similarly the inclusion of batteries as a cause of mining. Nuclear grids are already adding batteries, just like they traditionally added pumped hydro to make the most out of their nuclear investments.
That's a weird paragraph for a nuclear booster.
Is he dismissing these ideas entirely, or is very poorly communicating the idea that nuclear is better for these purposes?
That would be an honest argument, if he made it. But it feels like he's trying to imply these are somehow only required for renewables grids, but not nuclear grids which will what, just burn fossil oil instead?
Similarly the inclusion of batteries as a cause of mining. Nuclear grids are already adding batteries, just like they traditionally added pumped hydro to make the most out of their nuclear investments.