3 ms·

Yep, the environmental movement successfully dragged its heels for 40 years until something other than nuclear became viable. It's a pity, because if we just ha

Yep, the environmental movement successfully dragged its heels for 40 years until something other than nuclear became viable. It's a pity, because if we just hadn't stopped rolling out nuclear 40 years ago, and had merely continued at the same pace, our grid would be 100% nuclear today. Not 20 years from now if we hurry, today. One can only imagine the CO2 we wouldn't have had to remove from the atmosphere. What's done is done, though, and I'm glad there is finally a way forward that meets with their approval.

legulere 6y ago
The largest problem of nuclear price is the price of construction. Construction doesn’t keep up with efficiency gains in the rest of the economy and as a result gets more and more expensive.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Yes, and cleaning up the excess CO2 will be even more expensive, not to mention the unrecoverable damage to ecosystems, even more expensive to paper over. But they got theirs and in 25 years will be gone. This is why every cost argument as well as CO2 pricing scheme fails, and why were in the dire straits now.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Without the high price of construction, nuke wouldn't happen at all, in the US. The cost overruns are the gravy train for corruption that motivates the whole process. Cut off cost overruns and corruption, and all the appeal at high levels dries up. Other countries have other dynamics. Small-scale nukes are locked institutionally in competition with big corruption nukes, so at a disadvantage. Solar and wind start producing competitive power immediately. There is much less room there for corruption, but the immediate income from output drives investment.
jayd16 6y ago
I really don't see how you can blame environmentalists? Are you saying it was those meddling environmentalists that kept nuclear from dominating... in every country (except maybe france)? I think the reality is fossil fuel was damn cheap and nuclear was not.
- hedora 6y ago
  Decades ago, Greenpeace ran an extremely successful campaign to block nuclear plant construction, and to force nonsensical regulations on existing plants. I imagine they wouldn’t have done so if global warming was well-understood back then.

legulere 6y ago

The largest problem of nuclear price is the price of construction. Construction doesn’t keep up with efficiency gains in the rest of the economy and as a result gets more and more expensive.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Yes, and cleaning up the excess CO2 will be even more expensive, not to mention the unrecoverable damage to ecosystems, even more expensive to paper over. But they got theirs and in 25 years will be gone. This is why every cost argument as well as CO2 pricing scheme fails, and why were in the dire straits now.
ncmncm 6y ago
Without the high price of construction, nuke wouldn't happen at all, in the US. The cost overruns are the gravy train for corruption that motivates the whole process. Cut off cost overruns and corruption, and all the appeal at high levels dries up. Other countries have other dynamics. Small-scale nukes are locked institutionally in competition with big corruption nukes, so at a disadvantage. Solar and wind start producing competitive power immediately. There is much less room there for corruption, but the immediate income from output drives investment.

jayd16 6y ago

I really don't see how you can blame environmentalists? Are you saying it was those meddling environmentalists that kept nuclear from dominating... in every country (except maybe france)? I think the reality is fossil fuel was damn cheap and nuclear was not.

hedora 6y ago
Decades ago, Greenpeace ran an extremely successful campaign to block nuclear plant construction, and to force nonsensical regulations on existing plants. I imagine they wouldn’t have done so if global warming was well-understood back then.