According to a professor a few years ago, nuclear power has a maintainability problem: a reactor is only good for x (50?) years, so you have to rebuild them perpetually. Since the construction and cleanup are very complex, it isn’t feasible to power the earth with nuclear. Only solar seems able to scale enough, iirc
I think powering the earth via nuclear reactors in perpetuity has problems, but what we really need is a power source for the next century or so. Hopefully by then, we'll have more efficient solar panels, or fission, or something else.
50 years is actually pretty good. Most coal and natural gas power generating facilities last about 30 years. Solar plants are closer to 20 years.
Nuclear's problem in the US isn't so much the lifetime of a plant as the difficulty in constructing new plants and consignment of waste. There isn't much political will in either major US political party to allow these problems to be solved. As a result getting a new plant approved and constructed within a reasonable budget is close to impossible. Oil/natural gas companies hate them and environmentalist organizations hate them.
The only real support nuclear has is the military because it's so useful for ships and submarines.
Do solar panels not have a limited lifespan just as well? And is there a reason we could not build reactors with lifespans greater than 50 years? It seems the claim that only solar is scalable is premature, I'd say.
An important difference is that solar panels and battery cells can be replaced in far smaller units on a rolling basis if desired.
E.g., "we'll replace another row of roof shingles this month" vs. "reactor unit 2 will be down (not producing power, but still requiring active management) for two years for refueling".
on the long term probably, the idea (I have heard from diverse sources) is that only nuclear power can ensure the transition from carbon to sustainable energy in order to avoid to avoid a catastrophic++ climate change
