4 ms·

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 proje

by 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 ncmncm 4y ago

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.)