5 ms·

No, the greens don't get away that easily. Fossil fuel companies are the prime cause, but the opposition were every bit as aware of the consequences of not shif

No, the greens don't get away that easily. Fossil fuel companies are the prime cause, but the opposition were every bit as aware of the consequences of not shifting away and every bit as culpable for frustrating that shift. They chose to ignore the consequences because shouting "nein danke" at everything makes you look principled.

cableshaft 5y ago
While I agree it shouldn't have been slowed down when it did, Nuclear Power Plants are not going to save us now. "Nuclear energy is being outcompeted by renewable energy sources and is an inefficient solution to carbon emissions, according to the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) published on 24 September 2019." "The report estimates that the average construction time for reactors worldwide was ten years, significantly longer than the World Nuclear Association’s estimated construction time of between five and eight years. Nuclear reactors are also slow to start and a number have closed, with nine units closing over 2018 and a further five units expected to close over 2019." "The report also states that nuclear power is more expensive than renewables. Nuclear energy costs around $112-189 per megawatt hour (MWh) compared to $26-56MWh for onshore wind and $36-44MWh for solar power. Levelised cost estimates for solar and wind also dropped by 88% and 69% respectively, while they increased by 23% for nuclear power." https://www.power-technology.com/news/nuclear-energy-report-wnisr/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/nuclear-energy-report-...
- asdff 5y ago
  For a major project averaging two years behind estimates is pretty good actually. Look at how long it takes to build a train in the U.S.
  - cableshaft 5y ago
    Well the problem is we really need to cut emissions at least in half by 2030, so less than 10 years (and even that's probably not enough to stop some pretty awful shit). So if we suddenly start building 180+ nuclear plants this year (what the article says we need for the whole planet), they're unlikely to start providing any emission reduction at all until after 2030. That's part of the reason why they said in the article that they're too slow. That doesn't mean they can't be part of the solution, especially planning for 2040 and beyond, and Bill Gates mentioned in his book that he is investing some serious money into some next-gen nuclear power plants that is supposed to address some of their current issues, but they can't be the primary solution anymore (maybe they could have been 10-20 years ago if we built a lot more of them).

cableshaft 5y ago

While I agree it shouldn't have been slowed down when it did, Nuclear Power Plants are not going to save us now. "Nuclear energy is being outcompeted by renewable energy sources and is an inefficient solution to carbon emissions, according to the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) published on 24 September 2019." "The report estimates that the average construction time for reactors worldwide was ten years, significantly longer than the World Nuclear Association’s estimated construction time of between five and eight years. Nuclear reactors are also slow to start and a number have closed, with nine units closing over 2018 and a further five units expected to close over 2019." "The report also states that nuclear power is more expensive than renewables. Nuclear energy costs around $112-189 per megawatt hour (MWh) compared to $26-56MWh for onshore wind and $36-44MWh for solar power. Levelised cost estimates for solar and wind also dropped by 88% and 69% respectively, while they increased by 23% for nuclear power." https://www.power-technology.com/news/nuclear-energy-report-wnisr/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/nuclear-energy-report-...

asdff 5y ago
For a major project averaging two years behind estimates is pretty good actually. Look at how long it takes to build a train in the U.S.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  Well the problem is we really need to cut emissions at least in half by 2030, so less than 10 years (and even that's probably not enough to stop some pretty awful shit). So if we suddenly start building 180+ nuclear plants this year (what the article says we need for the whole planet), they're unlikely to start providing any emission reduction at all until after 2030. That's part of the reason why they said in the article that they're too slow. That doesn't mean they can't be part of the solution, especially planning for 2040 and beyond, and Bill Gates mentioned in his book that he is investing some serious money into some next-gen nuclear power plants that is supposed to address some of their current issues, but they can't be the primary solution anymore (maybe they could have been 10-20 years ago if we built a lot more of them).