13 ms·

Yes I'm sure I will, because that sounds exactly like what was being repeated 20 years ago. And I will keep hearing about it for a long long time while many new

Yes I'm sure I will, because that sounds exactly like what was being repeated 20 years ago. And I will keep hearing about it for a long long time while many new gas and even coal plants get built with their 50 year lifespans. Funny thing about this movement. It's caused more greenhouse gas emissions than just about anything. Anti-nuclear "environmentalists" are just about the best friends the fossil fuel industry has ever had. You'd almost think the whole thing was orchestrated by them, that's how great the partnership has been for them.

cogman10 5y ago
Solar prices have been decreasing at a staggering pace. 20 years ago, solar was certainly infeasible. That's not the case today and certainly won't be in 20 years. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 > Anti-nuclear "environmentalists" are just about the best friends the fossil fuel industry has ever had. Agreed, and that was mostly by design of the fossil fuel industry. Initial anti-nuclear rhetoric came from them. That said, the numbers are different today than they were 20 years ago. Solar and wind cost less and has less regulatory barriers to jump over to get deployed than nuclear. That will be true right up until land becomes a premium (which it isn't). 20 years ago, solar and wind were FAR more expensive than nuclear. Now, they are nearly the cheapest form of power generation (I think existing hydro still holds that crown).
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Solar prices have been decreasing at a staggering pace. 20 years ago, solar was certainly infeasible. That's not the case today and certainly won't be in 20 years. Yes, that's exactly what I heard 20 years ago too. One day it could even be right. It's a flimsy argument to discount nuclear energy with though, a proven reliable cheap low-carbon energy source (when the regulatory environment has not been corrupted by the fossil fuel industry and"environmental" lobbyists) that has been ready for 50 years. See: France.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    I don't buy that you heard that 20 years ago. I was around and interested in this stuff 20 years ago. The main argument was that solar was too expensive. Also, there's this [1]. [1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/08/05/youve-got-30-billion-to-spend-and-a-climate-crisis-nuclear-or-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/08/05/youve-got-30-billion-...
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      It doesn't matter what you "buy" or not, doesn't change the fact that in 2000, there were certainly "environmentalists" and solar snakeoil salesmen claiming that nuclear didn't make sense because of solar. > Also, there's this [1]. There's lots of things. France GHG emissions per capita: 6800kg/yr, Germany: 8520kg/yr. France electricity cost: 0.22c kw/h, Germany: 0.36c kw/h.

cogman10 5y ago

Solar prices have been decreasing at a staggering pace. 20 years ago, solar was certainly infeasible. That's not the case today and certainly won't be in 20 years. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 > Anti-nuclear "environmentalists" are just about the best friends the fossil fuel industry has ever had. Agreed, and that was mostly by design of the fossil fuel industry. Initial anti-nuclear rhetoric came from them. That said, the numbers are different today than they were 20 years ago. Solar and wind cost less and has less regulatory barriers to jump over to get deployed than nuclear. That will be true right up until land becomes a premium (which it isn't). 20 years ago, solar and wind were FAR more expensive than nuclear. Now, they are nearly the cheapest form of power generation (I think existing hydro still holds that crown).

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Solar prices have been decreasing at a staggering pace. 20 years ago, solar was certainly infeasible. That's not the case today and certainly won't be in 20 years. Yes, that's exactly what I heard 20 years ago too. One day it could even be right. It's a flimsy argument to discount nuclear energy with though, a proven reliable cheap low-carbon energy source (when the regulatory environment has not been corrupted by the fossil fuel industry and"environmental" lobbyists) that has been ready for 50 years. See: France.
- cogman10 5y ago
  I don't buy that you heard that 20 years ago. I was around and interested in this stuff 20 years ago. The main argument was that solar was too expensive. Also, there's this [1]. [1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/08/05/youve-got-30-billion-to-spend-and-a-climate-crisis-nuclear-or-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/08/05/youve-got-30-billion-...
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    It doesn't matter what you "buy" or not, doesn't change the fact that in 2000, there were certainly "environmentalists" and solar snakeoil salesmen claiming that nuclear didn't make sense because of solar. > Also, there's this [1]. There's lots of things. France GHG emissions per capita: 6800kg/yr, Germany: 8520kg/yr. France electricity cost: 0.22c kw/h, Germany: 0.36c kw/h.