Without flooding enormous ecosystems and disrupting river flows, and on average half the CO2 emissions per unit of generation than hydro has, and a staggeringly lower land use per energy footprint (hydro is 100x larger, wind is 10x larger). Nuclear seems like one of the only sane choices from an environmental point of view.
Looks like at least 30GW
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
Without flooding enormous ecosystems and disrupting river flows, and on average half the CO2 emissions per unit of generation than hydro has, and a staggeringly lower land use per energy footprint (hydro is 100x larger, wind is 10x larger). Nuclear seems like one of the only sane choices from an environmental point of view.
Wind's land-use footprint is almost completely non-exclusive.
1 reply →
If we use Vogtle as a cost benchmark you'd get roughly 5 GW (note you typo'd units to MW).
Given these projects will be overseas we shouldn’t use the extreme outlier of Vogtle in the US as the benchmark.
It’s 40GW of hydro