5 ms·

Uh, yeah, so should every green-type party. It's ridiculous to not be encouraging nuclear power when there are plenty of fossil-fuel power plants (especially co

by 0xTJ 4y ago

Uh, yeah, so should every green-type party. It's ridiculous to not be encouraging nuclear power when there are plenty of fossil-fuel power plants (especially coal) being operated and built. We can talk about switching away from nuclear when that's done. Nuclear power generation is far better for the environment and far safer (having cause many, many fewer deaths in history, per unit of power generated).

ncmncm 4y ago
Building nukes just means burning fossil fuels for another decade or more. Big Oil loves nuke projects.
- 0xTJ 4y ago
  I don't see how you could justify that conclusion. Is it that nuclear power plants aren't built overnight, and until they're done current power generation needs to continue? Because in that case it's just the status quo, but with an end data. If it's the fact that the building of a power plant costs significant energy, then why is that your problem with it? You need to bootstrap at some point, and some countries have made the ridiculous decision to go backwards, undoing that investment. Also, "nukes" generally means nuclear weapons, not nuclear reactors. It feels like it's being used here to intentionally denigrate nuclear power generation.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It is because money that would be building renewables that displace coal, oil and gas is instead tied up in construction, and not displacing any. When the project is finally cancelled, over budget and late, that money is spent and still not bringing renewables online. So, each nuke project eliminates substantial immediate, progressive, and permanent erosion of their market.
    - 0xTJ 4y ago
      Developing effective renewables does not preclude the development of nuclear power. Switching completely to renewables in the very short term is not feasible, and it will take particularly long in areas that aren't well-suited to any of the main renewable power technologies. Also, many governments provide ridiculous fossil fuel subsidies, which should be eliminated, freeing up money. New nuclear power plants will provide huge amounts of very-low-environmental-impact power for decades to come, it's not like its a wasted investment. Your second sentence seems to make the assumption that every nuclear power project will be cancelled, over budget and late, which is obviously wrong. The fact that you'd write that shows a bad-faith argument. You've also ignored the whole "nuke" thing. I strongly recommend watching this great Kurzgesagt video to help inform yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Building out nukes to displace fossil fuels is much less feasible, in exact proportion to the radically greater cost per MW, plus the additional >decade-long delay before any power comes out. Money is fungible. Each dollar tied up in nuke construction, plus each other in fossil fuel while waiting on it, are unavailable to use building out renewables. (And, yes, I ignore the "nukes" thing. There is no confusion. The facts suffice to denigrate them.)

by 0xTJ 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

Building nukes just means burning fossil fuels for another decade or more. Big Oil loves nuke projects.

0xTJ 4y ago
I don't see how you could justify that conclusion. Is it that nuclear power plants aren't built overnight, and until they're done current power generation needs to continue? Because in that case it's just the status quo, but with an end data. If it's the fact that the building of a power plant costs significant energy, then why is that your problem with it? You need to bootstrap at some point, and some countries have made the ridiculous decision to go backwards, undoing that investment. Also, "nukes" generally means nuclear weapons, not nuclear reactors. It feels like it's being used here to intentionally denigrate nuclear power generation.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It is because money that would be building renewables that displace coal, oil and gas is instead tied up in construction, and not displacing any. When the project is finally cancelled, over budget and late, that money is spent and still not bringing renewables online. So, each nuke project eliminates substantial immediate, progressive, and permanent erosion of their market.
  - 0xTJ 4y ago
    Developing effective renewables does not preclude the development of nuclear power. Switching completely to renewables in the very short term is not feasible, and it will take particularly long in areas that aren't well-suited to any of the main renewable power technologies. Also, many governments provide ridiculous fossil fuel subsidies, which should be eliminated, freeing up money. New nuclear power plants will provide huge amounts of very-low-environmental-impact power for decades to come, it's not like its a wasted investment. Your second sentence seems to make the assumption that every nuclear power project will be cancelled, over budget and late, which is obviously wrong. The fact that you'd write that shows a bad-faith argument. You've also ignored the whole "nuke" thing. I strongly recommend watching this great Kurzgesagt video to help inform yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Building out nukes to displace fossil fuels is much less feasible, in exact proportion to the radically greater cost per MW, plus the additional >decade-long delay before any power comes out. Money is fungible. Each dollar tied up in nuke construction, plus each other in fossil fuel while waiting on it, are unavailable to use building out renewables. (And, yes, I ignore the "nukes" thing. There is no confusion. The facts suffice to denigrate them.)