5 ms·

I used to hold the same opinion that reducing carbon without going nuclear wasn't possible. But, with increasing cost of nuclear power US, EU not categorising n

by mayama 4y ago

I used to hold the same opinion that reducing carbon without going nuclear wasn't possible. But, with increasing cost of nuclear power US, EU not categorising nuclear as green and not funding it, India seeing huge delay in their construction of nuclear plants in fleet mode, I came to conclusion that nuclear is not going to be built at scale needed at least in this decade. China is having success in their build out, but China's approach without huge bureaucracy/political overhead is not possible elsewhere. The time for nuclear was 2 decades ago, missing that a decade ago, if there was huge govt investments into it in US or EU. I am hopeful energy storage prices would come down similar to solar in coming years with multiple pilot projects of sodium, flow, thermal batteries expected to come up in few years. Energy storage with offshore wind, solar and solar CSP might be the only option at least for a decade.

robomartin 4y ago
> I came to conclusion that nuclear is not going to be built at scale needed at least in this decade. China is having success in their build out, but China's approach without huge bureaucracy/political overhead is not possible elsewhere. You are not wrong here. Nuclear is clearly a better solution. However, if the political forces and dominant ideological framework/cult opposes it, there is no way to make it happen. What we need is a Kennedy-style movement with a goal to "go to the moon" in nuclear power plant terms, in ten years. If everyone is aligned behind a common goal there is absolutely no question that a nation like the US can do it. So can Europe. We are not unique in that sense. It requires clear goals and no-bullshit unity of vision and purpose. To the extent that this is impossible to achieve, yes, we can probably say that nuclear is but a dream. Sadly, almost any construction at scale is impossible in the US these days. In California we have already spent over 100 billion dollars on a high speed train that was supposed to cost 10 billion. They only built about ten miles of low speed track and it doesn't even run. So, yes, again, you are right. So long as incompetence reigns high we can't get out of our own way, nuclear or otherwise.

by mayama 4y ago

robomartin 4y ago

> I came to conclusion that nuclear is not going to be built at scale needed at least in this decade. China is having success in their build out, but China's approach without huge bureaucracy/political overhead is not possible elsewhere. You are not wrong here. Nuclear is clearly a better solution. However, if the political forces and dominant ideological framework/cult opposes it, there is no way to make it happen. What we need is a Kennedy-style movement with a goal to "go to the moon" in nuclear power plant terms, in ten years. If everyone is aligned behind a common goal there is absolutely no question that a nation like the US can do it. So can Europe. We are not unique in that sense. It requires clear goals and no-bullshit unity of vision and purpose. To the extent that this is impossible to achieve, yes, we can probably say that nuclear is but a dream. Sadly, almost any construction at scale is impossible in the US these days. In California we have already spent over 100 billion dollars on a high speed train that was supposed to cost 10 billion. They only built about ten miles of low speed track and it doesn't even run. So, yes, again, you are right. So long as incompetence reigns high we can't get out of our own way, nuclear or otherwise.