6 ms·

We can't build reactors fast enough. And electricity is only a part of what generates emissions. It's no where close to a solution. Looking up the world's energ

We can't build reactors fast enough. And electricity is only a part of what generates emissions. It's no where close to a solution. Looking up the world's energy numbers, how much of total energy production and emissions are from electricity, how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, how many nuclear power plants are built per year etc. will show you this.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago
If it were important to us, we could build modular reactors on a massive scale. There are several manufacturers with serious designs. And yes, electricity is "only a part", but it's a big part. A solution needn't be a singular one to make a huge difference. Personally, I think nuclear isn't our best choice. But it is a viable choice and we could make it work.
- derekjdanserl 5y ago
  I disagree with this. Capitalism stands between what is important to us in the aggregate and what we actually do.
- andygates 5y ago
  "Serious designs" are nice but no pathfinder demo plants yet. And all that stretches the timescales.
vimy 5y ago
China is gonna build 150 reactors in 15 years for 440 billion dollar. They lack the defeatist attitude common in the West and it shows.
- a9h74j 5y ago
  West: China invented gunpowder and failed to exploit it. China: West invented nuclear power and failed to exploit it.
- merb 5y ago
  ... and in the same time they build even more hydro and other renewables, with even more money. china is just using everything to stop being that dependant on coal. it's just that their governement just does not care and builds everything, because china needs more energy every year. they quadrupled their energy needs in the last years. just because they build nuclear does not mean that they don't build other stuff.
- curuinor 5y ago
  CGN has exponentially increasing cost overruns and delays like the rest of 'em. It's just cheaper to have the cost overruns and delays because of their low cost of financing - which in turn is a big ol' chunk of the underlying problem behind the rash of state bank insolvencies that was the big news before the real estate insolvencies eclipsed them
- kitsune_ 5y ago
  Let's ignore the fact that uranium is a finite resource and that existing reactors have EOL dates and assume that the west, India and the rest of the world matches China and the world collectively build 600 reactors in the next 15 years, for 2 trillion USD. Congratulations, you barely doubled the amount of reactors and their share of the world's energy production rises from around 2% to 4%. Meanwhile the world needs to hit net zero emissions in around 2050. I'm agnostic about nuclear power but it's not the solution to global warming. Rich nations still need to reduce their emissions by 10% per year over the next decade and the developing world has to do the same starting around the 2030s.
weatherlight 5y ago
^ This. Also, It's the Wall Street Journal, so consider the source, its own by Rupert Murdoch, whose media companies, until very recently were climate change deniers, so from a rather crude sort of climate denialism, they will likely move to supporting technical "climate fixes" spruiked by the fossil fuel industries. This is a more subtle way of sabotaging real climate action.
- buu700 5y ago
  Why do you say that? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious what the fossil fuel industry might have to gain from pushing adoption of nuclear power.
  - weatherlight 5y ago
    WSJ pushes a lot of "Carbon Capture" stories and Nuclear fusion stories. (Chevron is one of Nuclear Fusion's biggest investors) Each day more than 2 million people pick up a copy of The Wall Street Journal or read it online, more than any other newspaper in the country, except USA Today, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. “More than three-fourths of them have a college degree, and their average household income is $234,909. These are affluent individuals who are executives or business owners. The Wallstreet Journal will never push an idea unless there's money to be made by its investors or affiliates, in the short term. and in the short term, I mean over 10 or 15 years. A forest has more value, in the short term, cut down than is does if left alone. Petrochemicals have more value, in the short term, if they are being pumped, refined, and processed (and then that carbon is captured) than it were just left alone to begin with. The absolute truth about dealing with the current climate crisis is that doing it right will not be profitable, in the short term, it will be an enormous undertaking across many fronts, and scientific disciplines, political agreements across nations states, etc.
- goatlover 5y ago
  So building new nuclear power plants, expanding carbon capture technology, and planting more trees are not real climate action? What exactly is real climate action? Hoping that renewables and batter technology can scale up to completely decarbonize energy use?
anonuser123456 5y ago
We can't build reactors fast enough because of the NRC, not because it's technically infeasible or unsafe. The NRC literally has a mandate to drive cost up. It's a pathological exercise in regulation.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago

If it were important to us, we could build modular reactors on a massive scale. There are several manufacturers with serious designs. And yes, electricity is "only a part", but it's a big part. A solution needn't be a singular one to make a huge difference. Personally, I think nuclear isn't our best choice. But it is a viable choice and we could make it work.

derekjdanserl 5y ago
I disagree with this. Capitalism stands between what is important to us in the aggregate and what we actually do.
andygates 5y ago
"Serious designs" are nice but no pathfinder demo plants yet. And all that stretches the timescales.

vimy 5y ago

China is gonna build 150 reactors in 15 years for 440 billion dollar. They lack the defeatist attitude common in the West and it shows.

a9h74j 5y ago
West: China invented gunpowder and failed to exploit it. China: West invented nuclear power and failed to exploit it.
merb 5y ago
... and in the same time they build even more hydro and other renewables, with even more money. china is just using everything to stop being that dependant on coal. it's just that their governement just does not care and builds everything, because china needs more energy every year. they quadrupled their energy needs in the last years. just because they build nuclear does not mean that they don't build other stuff.
curuinor 5y ago
CGN has exponentially increasing cost overruns and delays like the rest of 'em. It's just cheaper to have the cost overruns and delays because of their low cost of financing - which in turn is a big ol' chunk of the underlying problem behind the rash of state bank insolvencies that was the big news before the real estate insolvencies eclipsed them
kitsune_ 5y ago
Let's ignore the fact that uranium is a finite resource and that existing reactors have EOL dates and assume that the west, India and the rest of the world matches China and the world collectively build 600 reactors in the next 15 years, for 2 trillion USD. Congratulations, you barely doubled the amount of reactors and their share of the world's energy production rises from around 2% to 4%. Meanwhile the world needs to hit net zero emissions in around 2050. I'm agnostic about nuclear power but it's not the solution to global warming. Rich nations still need to reduce their emissions by 10% per year over the next decade and the developing world has to do the same starting around the 2030s.

weatherlight 5y ago

^ This. Also, It's the Wall Street Journal, so consider the source, its own by Rupert Murdoch, whose media companies, until very recently were climate change deniers, so from a rather crude sort of climate denialism, they will likely move to supporting technical "climate fixes" spruiked by the fossil fuel industries. This is a more subtle way of sabotaging real climate action.

buu700 5y ago
Why do you say that? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious what the fossil fuel industry might have to gain from pushing adoption of nuclear power.
- weatherlight 5y ago
  WSJ pushes a lot of "Carbon Capture" stories and Nuclear fusion stories. (Chevron is one of Nuclear Fusion's biggest investors) Each day more than 2 million people pick up a copy of The Wall Street Journal or read it online, more than any other newspaper in the country, except USA Today, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. “More than three-fourths of them have a college degree, and their average household income is $234,909. These are affluent individuals who are executives or business owners. The Wallstreet Journal will never push an idea unless there's money to be made by its investors or affiliates, in the short term. and in the short term, I mean over 10 or 15 years. A forest has more value, in the short term, cut down than is does if left alone. Petrochemicals have more value, in the short term, if they are being pumped, refined, and processed (and then that carbon is captured) than it were just left alone to begin with. The absolute truth about dealing with the current climate crisis is that doing it right will not be profitable, in the short term, it will be an enormous undertaking across many fronts, and scientific disciplines, political agreements across nations states, etc.
goatlover 5y ago
So building new nuclear power plants, expanding carbon capture technology, and planting more trees are not real climate action? What exactly is real climate action? Hoping that renewables and batter technology can scale up to completely decarbonize energy use?

anonuser123456 5y ago

We can't build reactors fast enough because of the NRC, not because it's technically infeasible or unsafe. The NRC literally has a mandate to drive cost up. It's a pathological exercise in regulation.