Nuclear seems like the best way to decarbonize places in high latitudes, where they have dark winters and few shores / rivers for hydro or wind. Canada, N Europe, N Asia, etc. I just don’t see how you’d make solar + batteries work at scale right now, esp for heat in the winter.
Ramez Naam
 @ramez
3 Jul 2019
Common sense view on nuclear, from @MLiebreich: 1. Keep existing reactors running as long as possible. 2. Acknowledge that nuclear industry is failing to build new reactors on time and on budget. 3. Aggressively fund nuclear innovation to get costs down. about.bnef.com/blog/liebreic…
2
Hydro is great in mountainous rainy places like Norway or British Columbia. And some northern places also have plenty of wind. Agree nuclear is good for many of the rest, though.
1
Enough to heat all homes, drive all cars and trucks, support industrial processes?
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr… says hydropower is 98% of electricity in Norway. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr… says hydropower is 87% of electricity in British Columbia, and 59% for Canada. (There's a reason Canadians talk about paying the "hydro" bill.)
2
There should be a bunch of places new hydro power stations could be built to meet new demand from moving off fossil fuels, but not sure if there is political will for that today.
2
1
Replying to @davidbaron @philikon
That said, these are sparsely populated places.

Jul 4, 2019 · 5:11 PM UTC

1
Replying to @davidbaron @philikon
(Oh, and if I remember correctly, home heating in Norway is generally electric already. Maybe also true in B.C.)