3 ms·
>At the height of the peak oil panic it kind of made sense, in a “contrarian thinking” way. I think you are underestimating how good of an option nuclear was.
by gizmo686 9y ago
>At the height of the peak oil panic it kind of made sense, in a “contrarian thinking” way.
I think you are underestimating how good of an option nuclear was. Going full nuclear [0] would have mitigated the single greatest environmental crisis in human history. Now we will be stuck with the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere while we were waiting for renewables to become practical.
But, its too late to fix that now. For purely economic reasons, nuclear doesn't make sense anymore; let alone the environmental and NIMBY reasons.
[0] To the extent practical. A 100% nuclear grid was likely never practical because nuclear isn't good for peaker plants.
- nl 9y agoIt would have have avoided most of the worst damages of climate change if we'd migrated to it in the 50s and 60s. Of course, even nuclear advocates say those old reactors are unsafe.
- opo 9y ago>...even nuclear advocates say those old reactors are unsafe. No, this is not what people are saying. Those plants from the 50s and 60s have proven to be far safer ways of generating electricity than any alternative. Even today those plants are still safer than rooftop solar or wind and orders of magnitude safer than coal etc. What people have been saying is that new designs are safer than previous designs - passive emergency cooling systems, etc. Given the political environment in the US, there will likely be little role for nuclear power for at least the next few decades. Instead it will likely be China which builds/deploys nuclear power.