5 ms·
Completely agree. I think we are seeing two things here: 1. Lobbying groups for fossils and nuclear trying to find disadvantages of renewables. The most bizarr
by cycomanic 4y ago
Completely agree. I think we are seeing two things here:
1. Lobbying groups for fossils and nuclear trying to find disadvantages of renewables. The most bizarre thing I saw a while ago was arguing strongly for nuclear largely based on the fact that it's more space efficient (saying the importance of that outweighs cost), while completely ignoring the fact that nuclear plants require extensive nofly zones (note theybare not really a problem atm either but would affect how much we can build out nuclear).
2. A strong push for making large scale renewable installations. While it is true that large scale solar is more efficient than smaller scale, I think the prime motivation is that it benefits large operators and investors, not individuals or small communities. Hence the lobby efforts.
In reality just putting solar on most existing warehouses and parking lots would already cover a significant proportion of our electricity use. And others pointed out how solar (and wind) can often be used in dual use environments benifiting both.
- colordrops 4y agoLobbyists in California have made multiple attempts to destroy solar, including existing residential installations. They failed their first attempt last year and are pushing again this year [1]. The proposal is a tax that is so high that solar panels will lose you money. https://solarrights.org/ https://solarrights.org/
- BostonEnginerd 4y agoI do think that space efficiency and good availability for nuclear are a reasonable argument for that technology. That doesn't mean we also shouldn't be putting solar onto every flat surface in the country, homes, businesses, parking lots, etc.
- ncmncm 4y agoEach nuke plant in the US uses up a whole square mile. Worse though, is that it costs overwhelmingly more to build than the solar generating capacity that would displace it. Furthermore, you burn enough coal in the time it takes to build it as would pay for another matching solar farm.
- throwaway894345 4y agoRenewables aren’t cost constrained, they’re constrained by the rate at which we can buy and install the panels, turbines, storage, etc. We literally can’t build renewables fast enough, so not only can we build nuclear alongside renewables, but it’s the fastest way to reduce our emissions while also securing our energy supply and diversifying our energy portfolio. It’s not renewables versus nuclear, it’s renewables and nuclear.
- jandrese 4y agoIt's not like nuclear plants are getting built in a fortnight either. In fact the ridiculous lead time on getting a nuclear plant generating electricity is one of the biggest problems with pitching them as a solution to climate change. We have already dithered far too long on this, we can't wait 20 years to reduce our carbon output, solutions need to be built in the next 5 years or less.
- throwaway894345 4y agoPlease re-read my above comment--I'm very specifically and explicitly not proposing forestalling renewables for 20 years while we build nuclear plants! I'm proposing we continue building out renewables at full tilt while we also build nuclear plants at full tilt.
- pydry 4y agoIf a $250 million subsidy gets you 2GW of solar/wind backed by pumped storage in 5 years and 1 GW of nuclear power in 20 years it doesnt really make much sense to split a $500 million pot of subsidy money 50/50 between the two. We would get more GW for the buck by using subsidies to really accelerate the expansion of green power generation that is already cost effective without subsidies (solar/wind/pumped storage) rather than throwing money at a form of power generation that wouldnt even exist without subsidies. If the subsidies were distributed on the basis of stability, GW output and availability then that would be efficient, effective and fair but that would kill off the nuclear industry entirely.