3 ms·
One could argue that nuclear is a huge distraction to solving our problems with solar and wind. I actually think more nuclear power would be great, but I don’t
by mikeash 8y ago
One could argue that nuclear is a huge distraction to solving our problems with solar and wind. I actually think more nuclear power would be great, but I don’t think it’s very realistic politically.
- 8bitsrule 8y agoNor economically... it's very expensive, from cradle to grave, and far beyond (decommissioning and waste storage reaching out for centuries). Solar and wind have zero fuel costs (before mechanical/electronic conversion), have already proven to be very competitive, and can be quickly manufactured and installed (months, not decades). And they create lots of jobs. I've heard about promising new, safer nuke tech for decades. So far, no proof in the pudding. Solar and wind tech were deliberately held back, politically, for decades. Too bad, we would be in much less trouble if that hadn't happened.
- mikeash 8y agoI don’t think it’s sensible to simultaneously argue that renewables are cheaper and create a lot of jobs. Jobs are the main expense, so it’s one or the other.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoI don't agree. While ongoing maintenance requires little labor for wind and solar, there are at least 400k US workers currently employed installing wind turbines and solar panels (rooftop and utility scale). That work will eventually run out, but it'll be years, if not decades before enough solar, wind, and other electrical infrastructure has been installed and upgraded to replace all fossil generation. It's as big, as if not bigger, than America's World War 2 efforts.