3 ms·

That is just fear mongering. We have no evidence of nuclear being built in-place of cheaper renewables. Until we do it's just FUD.

by jpgvm 4y ago

pvaldes 4y ago
> Until we do it's just FUD. And when we will do, it is too late to change our mind Too late, to little and, with bad luck, a very expensive error. Money is a limited resource. The only reason to tag nuclear as green is to grant nuclear access to subsides for green energy.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Who says money is a limited resource? I'd think only key things it can pay for (skilled human labour) are what're limited - you can "print" as much money as you like. We need far more people skilled in and dedicating their time toward developing low carbon energy sources. Given the number of us doing all manner of BS jobs, that doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve (even if it will necessarily take a number of years).
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    If money is unlimited, then just give solar panels for free to everybody. Put it in every roof of the country and you will achieve your goals much faster
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Indeed, governments should probably be subsidizing solar panels more heavily than they have been. As I said, obviously it requires the available skilled labor and capital investment to produce/install vastly more than we are currently but there are really no physical limits stopping that currently, just economical ones because the price signals are wrong.
dane-pgp 4y ago
Well, there is at least one study[0] (using data from 123 countries over 25 years) which found that investment in nuclear energy tends to reduce investment in renewables, while not reducing carbon emissions as much. More research is probably needed, but I wouldn't say we have "no evidence". [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3

3 ms·

That is just fear mongering. We have no evidence of nuclear being built in-place of cheaper renewables. Until we do it's just FUD.

by jpgvm 4y ago

That is just fear mongering. We have no evidence of nuclear being built in-place of cheaper renewables. Until we do it's just FUD.

pvaldes 4y ago
> Until we do it's just FUD. And when we will do, it is too late to change our mind Too late, to little and, with bad luck, a very expensive error. Money is a limited resource. The only reason to tag nuclear as green is to grant nuclear access to subsides for green energy.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Who says money is a limited resource? I'd think only key things it can pay for (skilled human labour) are what're limited - you can "print" as much money as you like. We need far more people skilled in and dedicating their time toward developing low carbon energy sources. Given the number of us doing all manner of BS jobs, that doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve (even if it will necessarily take a number of years).
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    If money is unlimited, then just give solar panels for free to everybody. Put it in every roof of the country and you will achieve your goals much faster
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Indeed, governments should probably be subsidizing solar panels more heavily than they have been. As I said, obviously it requires the available skilled labor and capital investment to produce/install vastly more than we are currently but there are really no physical limits stopping that currently, just economical ones because the price signals are wrong.
dane-pgp 4y ago
Well, there is at least one study[0] (using data from 123 countries over 25 years) which found that investment in nuclear energy tends to reduce investment in renewables, while not reducing carbon emissions as much. More research is probably needed, but I wouldn't say we have "no evidence". [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3