3 ms·
There's a third that I'm familiar with, and find compelling: construction. Building a new nuclear power plant costs tens of billions of dollars (usually requiri
by the_gastropod 10y ago
There's a third that I'm familiar with, and find compelling: construction. Building a new nuclear power plant costs tens of billions of dollars (usually requiring government funding) and ~10 years from start to finish. The efficiency of wind and solar power is increasing rapidly, and in 10 years will likely be a better investment than a nuclear plant.
- Cybiote 10y ago"The world construction rate peaked at 30 GW of nuclear power per year in 1984" ... "The rate of new build was biggest in 1984, and had a value of (drum-roll please...) about 30 GW per year – about 30 1-GW reactors." https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml
- merpnderp 10y agoAnd the world doesn't even have to reach France's historic rate. Just getting anywhere close to it, and filling the gaps with wind, solar, and natgas, would be a overwhelming win for stopping CO2 production (and providing cheap and plentiful energy).