3 ms·

That doesn't make sense. If you feel pressure by time, nuclear is and never was your solution. It takes too long to construct. By the time a single reactor is b

That doesn't make sense. If you feel pressure by time, nuclear is and never was your solution. It takes too long to construct. By the time a single reactor is build, renewables will jump several development steps.

Hammershaft 6y ago
That's fantastic but unfortunately there is no viable grid storage close to being capable of actually utilizing renewables for the majority of power all over the world. https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-to-get-biglike-enormousfor-solar-power-to-shine https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t... Are we really going to risk human civilization on the immediate invention and mass fabrication of new storage technologies orders of magnitude more efficient then what we have?
- addicted 6y ago
  Well, let’s get to 30-40% solar/wind before we start worrrying about grids that cannot accept majority renewable. And guess what, at that point maybe some of the newer, safer, and cheaper nuclear designs would have been proven so the nuclear plays we build then for the next few decades are better than the ones we would build right now.
- drran 6y ago
  Massive energy storage can^W will be built in fraction of time needed to build and then demolish a nuclear power plant.
saalweachter 6y ago
> By the time a single reactor is build, renewables will jump several development steps. We can build more than one nuclear reactor at a time, you know.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  How does that change something the amount of time it takes to build each of them? If you start now, it'll still take you almost a decade (or maybe it even will be a decade. You never know with NPPs because they always take longer and cost more than projected) and in that decade renewables will jump generations of development. In the end you just wasted money which could have been invested into true clean energy which is still improving fast.

Hammershaft 6y ago

That's fantastic but unfortunately there is no viable grid storage close to being capable of actually utilizing renewables for the majority of power all over the world. https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-to-get-biglike-enormousfor-solar-power-to-shine https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t... Are we really going to risk human civilization on the immediate invention and mass fabrication of new storage technologies orders of magnitude more efficient then what we have?

addicted 6y ago
Well, let’s get to 30-40% solar/wind before we start worrrying about grids that cannot accept majority renewable. And guess what, at that point maybe some of the newer, safer, and cheaper nuclear designs would have been proven so the nuclear plays we build then for the next few decades are better than the ones we would build right now.
drran 6y ago
Massive energy storage can^W will be built in fraction of time needed to build and then demolish a nuclear power plant.

saalweachter 6y ago

> By the time a single reactor is build, renewables will jump several development steps. We can build more than one nuclear reactor at a time, you know.

Krasnol 6y ago
How does that change something the amount of time it takes to build each of them? If you start now, it'll still take you almost a decade (or maybe it even will be a decade. You never know with NPPs because they always take longer and cost more than projected) and in that decade renewables will jump generations of development. In the end you just wasted money which could have been invested into true clean energy which is still improving fast.