3 ms·

I don't think wind is a panacea, but I think you're over-simplifying things - you can't just buy more nuclear power plants either; at least in the Western world

I don't think wind is a panacea, but I think you're over-simplifying things - you can't just buy more nuclear power plants either; at least in the Western world, cost overruns in multiples of the original price are inevitable, the total time from planning to operational is decades, and it's difficult to find places where their presence is accepted.

jjoonathan 6y ago
If only we hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, we'd be at 100% instead of 20% market penetration. We would be free of CO2-heavy electricity today, not maybe 30 years from now optimistically. We knew how to build nuclear, but then Chernobyl and TMI happened and we decided we didn't want to. Which, in a vacuum, seems reasonable, until one remembers that the "cool-headed alternative" we settled on was to pump our atmosphere full of CO2 while we waited for solar and wind to eventually become viable and continue to wait to deploy them. We made our bed and now we get to lie in it.
- GordonS 6y ago
  FWIW, I completely agree. Nuclear power in much of the west became a "toxic" issue after Chernobyl in particular. Here in the UK, I don't think we've had a new reactor built since the mid 90's - if we'd been more rational, we could potentially have saved the environment a lot of damage while solar and wind matured and became viable.
- oska 6y ago
  Your portrayal is so slanted. Here's an alternative take: if the many, many, many billions of dollars that were squandered on the nuclear fission industry around the world had instead been invested into wind, solar and storage then we could be at 100% renewable today. Nuclear had incredible top level support and still failed. Renewables are now succeeding and besting nuclear (fission) despite being neglected for so long.
  - throwaway0899 6y ago
    In what way has nuclear failed anything? It’s working fine. It’s not the technology’s fault we decided not to build any more power plants.

jjoonathan 6y ago

If only we hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, we'd be at 100% instead of 20% market penetration. We would be free of CO2-heavy electricity today, not maybe 30 years from now optimistically. We knew how to build nuclear, but then Chernobyl and TMI happened and we decided we didn't want to. Which, in a vacuum, seems reasonable, until one remembers that the "cool-headed alternative" we settled on was to pump our atmosphere full of CO2 while we waited for solar and wind to eventually become viable and continue to wait to deploy them. We made our bed and now we get to lie in it.

GordonS 6y ago
FWIW, I completely agree. Nuclear power in much of the west became a "toxic" issue after Chernobyl in particular. Here in the UK, I don't think we've had a new reactor built since the mid 90's - if we'd been more rational, we could potentially have saved the environment a lot of damage while solar and wind matured and became viable.
oska 6y ago
Your portrayal is so slanted. Here's an alternative take: if the many, many, many billions of dollars that were squandered on the nuclear fission industry around the world had instead been invested into wind, solar and storage then we could be at 100% renewable today. Nuclear had incredible top level support and still failed. Renewables are now succeeding and besting nuclear (fission) despite being neglected for so long.
- throwaway0899 6y ago
  In what way has nuclear failed anything? It’s working fine. It’s not the technology’s fault we decided not to build any more power plants.