4 ms·
Thats why we should be exclusively nuclear.
by rtx 6y ago
Thats why we should be exclusively nuclear.
- wp381640 6y agoEasy to have that opinion but the market is building wind/solar + battery + pumped hydro
- puranjay 6y agoHear hear. We need a massive pro-nuclear public campaign. When people think of "nuclear power", they just think of Chernobyl. In hindsight, Chernobyl might have done more harm to the planet than we thought - it single handedly turned public opinion against nuclear power, and all the clean energy it provides. One wonders if we would have any of our current climate issues if we had adopted nuclear power en masse in the 80s and 90s.
- Krasnol 6y agoWhen political decision makers and investors think of "nuclear power", they just think of overdue and over budget projects that may be finished in a decade. In a decade renewables will be so far ahead that it would be plain stupid to push nuclear. This is why it's not happening outside a lobby group from the industry who try to push shady people like Michael Shellenberger.
- fenk85 6y agoIf you read the linked article you would see that renewables went down because of economies of scale and repeatability same could be done for nuclear fission plants, especially efforts around miniaturisation and modularity with fail safes build in.
- pydry 6y agoI think 2-5x the cost, 10-1000x the capital intensity, and the industry's demand of a $200 million liability cap to make plants insurable. Maybe if we had adopted nuclear en masse in the 80s we could have avoided current climate issues, but we didn't. I don't see why anybody thinks there's any point subsidizing this industry to hell and back now given the cost and the cheaper, less capital intensive options available that don't need subsidies.
- bildung 6y agoThe very article clearly explains why the world moves in the opposite direction.