3 ms·
There are no arguments against nuclear that stand up to scrutiny beyond emotional knee-jerk reactions. Nuclear is safe, cheap and most importantly reliable. R
by 0xy 5y ago
There are no arguments against nuclear that stand up to scrutiny beyond emotional knee-jerk reactions.
Nuclear is safe, cheap and most importantly reliable.
Renewables are not reliable. Baseload renewables is a pipe dream that has been disproven repeatedly. Hence why jurisdictions that have dived into a heavy renewables energy mix are building gas peaking plants, utilising diesel generators in emergencies or adding batteries to the grid powered by child slaves in the Congo.
Even some of the more reliable renewable solutions like hydro occasionally have lulls that wipe out literally years of the benefit of running them.
As an example, the state of Tasmania in Australia runs on close to 100% hydro power year round, except when rare drought hits. When hydro didn't produce enough power one year, the Tasmania government flew in diesel generators to power the state and ran them for months, wiping out years of progress (diesel is worse than coal).
- tstrimple 5y agoNo arguments other than price and time to build. But most nuclear proponents will claim nuclear is perfectly safe, while simultaneously saying we should cut through the legislation and "red tape" in order to build it more cheaply. The very things which would make it safe in the first place.
- ncmncm 5y agoExcept, it is not cheap at all: lately, in the US, you spend tens of billions of dollars for ten years or more, and get exactly zero watt-hours out, ever. $30B for zero watts of generating capacity is not a good value.