3 ms·

Just a random paragraph that caught my eye. > And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just

Just a random paragraph that caught my eye. > And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options. You're literally investing that euro into climate protection... but it's not climate protection because you can't invest it in something else? If you start with this mindset of course you'll end up with nuclear energy being bad. You either postulated it's bad, or you wrote the specifications to make sure it ends up bad.

dv_dt 5y ago
It is the comparison of investing euro into nuclear projects which won’t yield one gram of carbon reduction until ten to twenty years down the road vs a solar wind or storage project would could have a two to three year timeline from plan to operation. And not only that, but euro for euro will generate more energy then the equivalent nuclear plant.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  That's a ROI issue, not a climate issue. If a dollar is better invested in something else, it will be.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    If the R is expressed in tons of carbon per dollar over 10-30 year spans it is a climate issue - especially because governments and businesses are already loathe to spend on climate action.
yholio 5y ago
It's an euro invested today in climate protection that supplies zero energy for the next 10 years, while the same euro invested in solar/wind + batteries will also generate energy in the short run, helping retire carbon emitters now. It makes sense if present value of reduced carbon is high, the value of your future nuclear plant gets discounted by a large "carbon interest".

dv_dt 5y ago

It is the comparison of investing euro into nuclear projects which won’t yield one gram of carbon reduction until ten to twenty years down the road vs a solar wind or storage project would could have a two to three year timeline from plan to operation. And not only that, but euro for euro will generate more energy then the equivalent nuclear plant.

radu_floricica 5y ago
That's a ROI issue, not a climate issue. If a dollar is better invested in something else, it will be.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  If the R is expressed in tons of carbon per dollar over 10-30 year spans it is a climate issue - especially because governments and businesses are already loathe to spend on climate action.

yholio 5y ago

It's an euro invested today in climate protection that supplies zero energy for the next 10 years, while the same euro invested in solar/wind + batteries will also generate energy in the short run, helping retire carbon emitters now. It makes sense if present value of reduced carbon is high, the value of your future nuclear plant gets discounted by a large "carbon interest".