4 ms·
Not an expert, but I was convinced to switch from "nuke is a bad idea" to "nuke asap is a less bad idea than any other current option" when I was pointed to the
by ergothus 8y ago
Not an expert, but I was convinced to switch from "nuke is a bad idea" to "nuke asap is a less bad idea than any other current option" when I was pointed to the ridiculously messy situation we have and the transmission problem
1) the situation now is that, as longterm as nuke waste is, it pales in comparison to the long-term of coal and natural gas extraction, transport, and burning.
2) renewables are great and where we want to go...but the tech is not at a place where we can get 100% yet and we have no efficient way to transmit power long distances nor store power, so we can't have solar in a desert in Arizona power Fargo Minnesota.
Why do you think nuke power likely doesn't make sense anymore?
- hndamien 8y agoA nuclear power plant will take 10 years to come online, and will last for about 50 years. You then have the transmission problems, toxic waste problem and risks. I'm willing to largely ignore the toxic waste and risks because they are addressing a far bigger problem. So let's call them negligible (even though they aren't) and I still think nuclear today is a hard case to make. Getting these approved are large capital expenditures of around $9 billion that come online all at once. Then you have the transmission problems as mentioned. I have not done the math but it seems that it would be faster, and more politically tenable to use decentralised solar virtual power plants and wind such that individual households become largely responsible for their own power and act in concert as the grid supplier and battery. The main thing preventing this seems to be capital investment, regulation and political will.