3 ms·

And there's enough time for a solar or wind revolution? It's not like solar panels come out of thin air either. Same with windmills... To build solar or wind

And there's enough time for a solar or wind revolution? It's not like solar panels come out of thin air either. Same with windmills... To build solar or wind at the scale we need would be quite the "revolution". Probably even more so than nuclear because you'd have no way to store the energy unless you went absolutely mad with lithium mining and battery production. Which would also take years to scale. Truth is - both options are difficult. But I think nuclear is a lot easier and it's surprising that it meets so much resistance all the time. It's much more like take a few square miles out of a few geographies and you get reliable power. Versus - miles and miles of solar panels (that you may or may not be able to fly over and are very prone to the weather of the day) or windmills (killing all the birds and not so great sound for anyone close). And then the battery farms you gotta spread around everywhere... Or have everyone purchase $5,000+ in batteries that have to be replaced every X years.

adrianN 7y ago
Renewables have the benefit that they provide a gradual reduction in CO2 emissions that starts basically right now, compared to not reducing emissions at all until the reactors go online.
- bradlys 7y ago
  I think the scale required to do batteries + solar + wind is much greater than building nuclear power plants. I know that nuclear power plants are a large scale event but so is creating a factory to make PVs. Same with lithium mines. Same with refinement of that lithium. Now we're getting into having to create lots of steel for wind turbines too. In my mind, you get to the end in 10 years with nuclear. With solar, you get to production capacity to solve the issue in 10 years while slowly addressing the problem along the way. I think the dent you'd make in 10 years while ramping up to production capacity would at best just match increased demand. Then you have large swaths of land that are dedicated to solar cells, wind turbines, refineries, factories, and mines we had to use for all the lithium. (Not that some of those won't exist for nuclear)
  - adrianN 7y ago
    IMO the situation is dire enough that we should just follow both paths simultaneously. Build as much nuclear as we can, but also build as much renewables as we can.
    - watbywbarif 7y ago
      I don't think that "industry capacity" is problem for nuclear option. That problem is in peoples minds and public opinion thanks to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Check out how fast you can ramp up production when in need :D http://mathscinotes.com/2017/09/ww2-tank-production-comparison-between-combatants/ http://mathscinotes.com/2017/09/ww2-tank-production-comparis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wor... Problem is that if you ramp up solar/wind you will have to ramp up battery/hydro for backup if you want to stay clean. Nuclear does not need batteries. If you have cheap nuclear, than you make real changes in transport and recycling.

adrianN 7y ago

Renewables have the benefit that they provide a gradual reduction in CO2 emissions that starts basically right now, compared to not reducing emissions at all until the reactors go online.

bradlys 7y ago
I think the scale required to do batteries + solar + wind is much greater than building nuclear power plants. I know that nuclear power plants are a large scale event but so is creating a factory to make PVs. Same with lithium mines. Same with refinement of that lithium. Now we're getting into having to create lots of steel for wind turbines too. In my mind, you get to the end in 10 years with nuclear. With solar, you get to production capacity to solve the issue in 10 years while slowly addressing the problem along the way. I think the dent you'd make in 10 years while ramping up to production capacity would at best just match increased demand. Then you have large swaths of land that are dedicated to solar cells, wind turbines, refineries, factories, and mines we had to use for all the lithium. (Not that some of those won't exist for nuclear)
- adrianN 7y ago
  IMO the situation is dire enough that we should just follow both paths simultaneously. Build as much nuclear as we can, but also build as much renewables as we can.
  - watbywbarif 7y ago
    I don't think that "industry capacity" is problem for nuclear option. That problem is in peoples minds and public opinion thanks to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Check out how fast you can ramp up production when in need :D http://mathscinotes.com/2017/09/ww2-tank-production-comparison-between-combatants/ http://mathscinotes.com/2017/09/ww2-tank-production-comparis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wor... Problem is that if you ramp up solar/wind you will have to ramp up battery/hydro for backup if you want to stay clean. Nuclear does not need batteries. If you have cheap nuclear, than you make real changes in transport and recycling.