4 ms·
Sometimes these comments make me think there are nuclear shills being paid to write overly pro nuclear comments. I agree we need way more nuclear, however its c
by Dumblydorr 7y ago
Sometimes these comments make me think there are nuclear shills being paid to write overly pro nuclear comments. I agree we need way more nuclear, however its costly and very slow to bring online, so it clearly won't decarbonize our economies in the 5 to 10 year time span. Anyone who thinks it's the only solution is just ignorant of the energy industry.
Like seriously, parent commenter, tell me how new build nuclear is doing in the USA. How about South Carolina's massive debacle? You think that is the only feasible path forward?
- bin0 7y agoIt's costly and slow because of massive over-regulation and American regulators' retarded approval of new generations of technology. And no, there are no nuclear shills; wind and solar are not feasible nation-wide. They require a massive overhaul of the electric grid and a change in our consumption model of electricity, which no one wants (nor should he have) to do.
- naasking 7y ago> I agree we need way more nuclear, however its costly and very slow to bring online The other poster is correct that this is a regulatory issue. Other countries can bring nuclear power plants online in under 5 years, where it takes almost 15 in the US IIRC.
- travisoneill1 7y agoThere is nothing that will decarbonize our economy in 10 years. Comparing nuclear power to magic isn't useful.