4 ms·
You are correct. Nuclear is an excellent source for large amounts of energy. Decades of propaganda have led to people mistakenly believing that wind, solar and
by eldaisfish 5y ago
You are correct. Nuclear is an excellent source for large amounts of energy.
Decades of propaganda have led to people mistakenly believing that wind, solar and batteries on a large enough scale are a substitute for steady, controllable power generation from sources such as coal, natural gas and nuclear.
The sad part is that while we wait for the grid transition to happen at an indeterminate point in the future, climate change is a problem from yesterday that has a very real effect today. The worse part is that the nuclear industry continues to atrophy talent and knowledge when we should instead be focussing on making nuclear power an everyday thing.
Instead of playing the blame game on pollution, i really wish the West would do the one thing that has the greatest potential to supply energy to and lift millions out of poverty - build nuclear reactors and transmission grids in Africa, India and China.
- krasin 5y agoI mostly agree with the comment above, but I want to note that China does not need the US to build the reactors: they are already doing it themselves. "As of June 2021, China has a total nuclear power generation capacity of 49.6 GW from 50 reactors, with additional 17.1 GW under construction." per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
- eldaisfish 5y agoThe more important figure is that under 3% of China's electrical energy comes from nuclear as of 2020. That is a pitifully low number when over half their electric energy comes from coal.
- krasin 5y agoAccording to the link I provided above, it's 6% and they are accelerating replacement of coal with nuclear.