5 ms·

"Invest" means to spend money with a reasonable chance of a net return. There is no chance of a return here that outweighs the expenses. That's why Japan simpl

"Invest" means to spend money with a reasonable chance of a net return. There is no chance of a return here that outweighs the expenses. That's why Japan simple calls it spending. Maybe that spending is worth it for science or carbon neutrality or energy independence. Reasonable people may differ. But it is not an investment.

posterboy 4y ago
> There is no chance of a return here that outweighs the expenses. Considering the risk?
robertlagrant 4y ago
Well, you get an economy out of it. Minus the economic utility of printing I Did That stickers.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Not if you could get the same economy out another much cheaper way. Which you can.
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    Everything has trade-offs, there is no simply "better" option on the table, every option sucks. Fossil fuels have co2 emissions, price fluctuations and energy security as issues (as seen with Russia today who weaponised their supply), renewables have consistency problems which is problematic until we solve our energy storage issues, nuclear has massive issues around waste and runtime danger and hydro is limited by geography.
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. So as soon as people want to pretend it is an "investment" there very much is a simple better option: whatever costs less and generates more revenue. On that basis Nuclear is never the right answer.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing... Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.
      - ChefboyOG 4y ago
        This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing". If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.
      - vlovich123 4y ago
        You’re taking too narrow a definition. Investment: > Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Invest: > to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return > to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely > to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).
    - Retric 4y ago
      Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. Things presumably look slightly different in Japan, but this is looking like political rather than an economic decision. Right this moment they have some cover to save the industry even if little is going to change any time soon.
      - raspberry1337 4y ago
        Last numbers I looked at had nuclear much more profitable than solar, especially during winter, hence why China is currently installing 20 new reactors, with a goal for much more in the future.
        Retric 4y ago
        China has been adding VASTLY more solar than nuclear. 20 new reactors is only something like 5GW/year because of how long it takes to build nuclear.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Sure, but why do you think they'd adding both? Solar for intermittent, and nuclear for base.
        Retric 4y ago
        Finite manufacturing capacity is a factor. 5GW / year @ 90% capacity factor ~= 3 million 200W panels @ 30% capacity factor + 40-60GWh of batteries. It’s not completely equivalent, but they both need roughly the same amount of peaking power plants to make up the difference. Plus Solar’s costs are front loaded, with China’s rapidly growing economy they can ignore decommissioning or even long term operating costs as largely irrelevant.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. That's interesting. Two queries: Are they real world numbers or projections vs real numbers? And are they done in the sort of setup that we have in the UK, where renewable is soft-subsidised by always winning the bids for demand when it's available, and non-renewable gets what's left.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      > nuclear has massive issues around waste The waste issue has been solved. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-borehole-nuclear-waste-disposal-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-likely/?sh=1b0d5ebb67c8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-bore...
      - Quarrelsome 4y ago
        I wouldn't consider the existence of a start-up proof that a problem has been solved, especially given the need of hyping one's own product (and possibly downplaying any remaining challenges) as a nascent organisation.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        This isn't new stuff[0], just made more affordable by some technology from the fracking industry. It's Yucca Mountain without the mountain. [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-just-throw-our-nuclear-waste-down-a-deep-hole/?sh=78e91b753b64 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-j... [0-1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
        Quarrelsome 4y ago
        Sure but until it is actually utilised and proven to work on the scales required for existing nuclear deployments it still remains an estimate and not a precise cost.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        Now do grid scale batteries. "Renewables" have the same issue and are looked at rather uncritically. We dig boreholes like this on a regular basis, all that's left is tossing the waste containers in.
    - karmakurtisaani 4y ago
      I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors where the technology is still not quite there for mass production. The licensing is also a problem at least in some countries, as getting a permit is very difficult it makes sense to only build massive power plants.
      - Quarrelsome 4y ago
        > I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. I don't. Current estimates for the dismantlement of Sellafield in the UK is £121 billion and that figure is likely somewhat lower than the final cost. Given that most proposals are created in order to be accepted there is a high chance the total costs of the plant (including decommissioning) are understated. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantling-sellafield-epic-task-shutting-down-decomissioned-nuclear-site https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantl...
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Reading the article, you can see why it's not an honest example to back up your point. Sellafield was built partly without decommissioning in mind, it was originally used for something else (making plutonium for weapons) and still has 140 tonnes of that plutonium on site. It was built with world war 3 in mind. It's not a modern nuclear reactor. Sellafield has more unknowns that most, but I doubt it's been underbid. I think nuclear proposals undergo a great deal of scrutiny and are some of the most cost-complete in existence. Hinkley Point C in the UK, its masterful government negotiation aside, has I believe a total lifetime cost of around £40bn.
HPsquared 4y ago
That really depends on future energy prices; it's always a bit of a gamble.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Not really. Even if you assume crazy high energy prices in the future you get a larger return on your investment using cheaper technology. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Japan's solar and onshore wind resources are pretty abysmal and their ocean shelf is steep. Unless you expect them to cover the entire early adopter costs of floating offshore wind (and too quickly for the devopment money to be efficient), then there's not really a viable renewable option for bulk power the next 8 years or so. Even if it costs on the order of $150US/MWh to restart their reactors it makes sense.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      The latest floating off-shore wind pilot project in UK went for £87.30/MWh = $105US/MWh. This is a super low scale project so if it works out we can expect costs to reduce quite drastically when scaling it up. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1103022/contracts-for-difference-allocation-round-4-results.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... https://www.twinhub.co.uk/ https://www.twinhub.co.uk/ Company building the floating foundation: https://www.hexicongroup.com/ https://www.hexicongroup.com/
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The offshore wind market is going through some growing pains right now so we can't rely on the price decreases in the short term like usual, and Japan's coast is quite different to the UK's. There are superstorms, tsunami, and even laying cable is hard and expensive. Hopefully the reactors are obviously obsolete in 2032 and offshore wind, tidal, or imported ammonia replaces them, but for now it makes a lot of sense.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Quarrelsome 4y ago
A nation spending on its own energy infrastructure is an investment.
vopoylovslov 4y ago
Said who? You?
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    As more people are finally recognizing, LCOE is wholly unrelated to systems costs of large scale decarbonized systems. It assumes you have a free and giant fossil based grid hanging around to back you up when you hit a calm month.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      I do not get where you think that need of a fossil grid comes from? Seems like a hyperbole based on preconceived notions? Research has consistently shown that a 100% renewable grid is feasible and economically sound. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. > However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 Or we can take a look at Wikipedia for an even broader view > 100% renewable energy means getting all energy from renewable resources. The endeavor to use 100% renewable energy for electricity, heating, cooling and transport is motivated by climate change, pollution and other environmental issues, as well as economic and energy security concerns. > Research into this topic is fairly new, with very few studies published before 2009, but has gained increasing attention in recent years. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination – is feasible and economically viable.[5][6][7][8] A cross-sectoral, holistic approach is seen as an important feature of 100% renewable energy systems and is based on the assumption "that the best solutions can be found only if one focuses on the synergies between the sectors" of the energy system such as electricity, heat, transport or industry.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
throwuwu 4y ago
Do some research into Japans track record on building Nuclear. They’re one of the few countries that didn’t let green peace idiots ruin their regulatory bodies so they’re still able to build nuclear plants in the same amount of time it takes to build a coal burning plant.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  They’re going to spend well over $100B and potentially up to $1T cleaning up Fukushima.. either figure would’ve been better spent on literally anything else.. hard to call Japan’s nuclear regulatory backdrop a success story. And I’m sorry, there’s absolutely no chance that the next reactor is built in under a decade. Working on Vogtle bankrupted Toshiba’s nuclear unit.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  This is an interesting take when regulatory capture enabled TEPCO to keep operating those plants that melted down even in the face of what should have been clearly dangerous compromises. People who complain about nuclear regulation are really just saying "let us have some meltdowns, they aren't really that bad." That's also why they go on saying mixed up nonsense about radiation hormesis.
koheripbal 4y ago
This is a pointless semantic argument, that it's even correct.

posterboy 4y ago

> There is no chance of a return here that outweighs the expenses. Considering the risk?

robertlagrant 4y ago

Well, you get an economy out of it. Minus the economic utility of printing I Did That stickers.

LatteLazy 4y ago
Not if you could get the same economy out another much cheaper way. Which you can.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  Everything has trade-offs, there is no simply "better" option on the table, every option sucks. Fossil fuels have co2 emissions, price fluctuations and energy security as issues (as seen with Russia today who weaponised their supply), renewables have consistency problems which is problematic until we solve our energy storage issues, nuclear has massive issues around waste and runtime danger and hydro is limited by geography.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. So as soon as people want to pretend it is an "investment" there very much is a simple better option: whatever costs less and generates more revenue. On that basis Nuclear is never the right answer.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing... Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.
    - ChefboyOG 4y ago
      This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing". If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      You’re taking too narrow a definition. Investment: > Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Invest: > to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return > to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely > to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).
  - Retric 4y ago
    Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. Things presumably look slightly different in Japan, but this is looking like political rather than an economic decision. Right this moment they have some cover to save the industry even if little is going to change any time soon.
    - raspberry1337 4y ago
      Last numbers I looked at had nuclear much more profitable than solar, especially during winter, hence why China is currently installing 20 new reactors, with a goal for much more in the future.
      - Retric 4y ago
        China has been adding VASTLY more solar than nuclear. 20 new reactors is only something like 5GW/year because of how long it takes to build nuclear.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Sure, but why do you think they'd adding both? Solar for intermittent, and nuclear for base.
        Retric 4y ago
        Finite manufacturing capacity is a factor. 5GW / year @ 90% capacity factor ~= 3 million 200W panels @ 30% capacity factor + 40-60GWh of batteries. It’s not completely equivalent, but they both need roughly the same amount of peaking power plants to make up the difference. Plus Solar’s costs are front loaded, with China’s rapidly growing economy they can ignore decommissioning or even long term operating costs as largely irrelevant.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. That's interesting. Two queries: Are they real world numbers or projections vs real numbers? And are they done in the sort of setup that we have in the UK, where renewable is soft-subsidised by always winning the bids for demand when it's available, and non-renewable gets what's left.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > nuclear has massive issues around waste The waste issue has been solved. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-borehole-nuclear-waste-disposal-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-likely/?sh=1b0d5ebb67c8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-bore...
    - Quarrelsome 4y ago
      I wouldn't consider the existence of a start-up proof that a problem has been solved, especially given the need of hyping one's own product (and possibly downplaying any remaining challenges) as a nascent organisation.
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        This isn't new stuff[0], just made more affordable by some technology from the fracking industry. It's Yucca Mountain without the mountain. [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-just-throw-our-nuclear-waste-down-a-deep-hole/?sh=78e91b753b64 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-j... [0-1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
        Quarrelsome 4y ago
        Sure but until it is actually utilised and proven to work on the scales required for existing nuclear deployments it still remains an estimate and not a precise cost.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        Now do grid scale batteries. "Renewables" have the same issue and are looked at rather uncritically. We dig boreholes like this on a regular basis, all that's left is tossing the waste containers in.
  - karmakurtisaani 4y ago
    I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors where the technology is still not quite there for mass production. The licensing is also a problem at least in some countries, as getting a permit is very difficult it makes sense to only build massive power plants.
    - Quarrelsome 4y ago
      > I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. I don't. Current estimates for the dismantlement of Sellafield in the UK is £121 billion and that figure is likely somewhat lower than the final cost. Given that most proposals are created in order to be accepted there is a high chance the total costs of the plant (including decommissioning) are understated. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantling-sellafield-epic-task-shutting-down-decomissioned-nuclear-site https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantl...
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Reading the article, you can see why it's not an honest example to back up your point. Sellafield was built partly without decommissioning in mind, it was originally used for something else (making plutonium for weapons) and still has 140 tonnes of that plutonium on site. It was built with world war 3 in mind. It's not a modern nuclear reactor. Sellafield has more unknowns that most, but I doubt it's been underbid. I think nuclear proposals undergo a great deal of scrutiny and are some of the most cost-complete in existence. Hinkley Point C in the UK, its masterful government negotiation aside, has I believe a total lifetime cost of around £40bn.

HPsquared 4y ago

That really depends on future energy prices; it's always a bit of a gamble.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Not really. Even if you assume crazy high energy prices in the future you get a larger return on your investment using cheaper technology. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Japan's solar and onshore wind resources are pretty abysmal and their ocean shelf is steep. Unless you expect them to cover the entire early adopter costs of floating offshore wind (and too quickly for the devopment money to be efficient), then there's not really a viable renewable option for bulk power the next 8 years or so. Even if it costs on the order of $150US/MWh to restart their reactors it makes sense.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    The latest floating off-shore wind pilot project in UK went for £87.30/MWh = $105US/MWh. This is a super low scale project so if it works out we can expect costs to reduce quite drastically when scaling it up. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1103022/contracts-for-difference-allocation-round-4-results.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... https://www.twinhub.co.uk/ https://www.twinhub.co.uk/ Company building the floating foundation: https://www.hexicongroup.com/ https://www.hexicongroup.com/
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The offshore wind market is going through some growing pains right now so we can't rely on the price decreases in the short term like usual, and Japan's coast is quite different to the UK's. There are superstorms, tsunami, and even laying cable is hard and expensive. Hopefully the reactors are obviously obsolete in 2032 and offshore wind, tidal, or imported ammonia replaces them, but for now it makes a lot of sense.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Quarrelsome 4y ago

A nation spending on its own energy infrastructure is an investment.

vopoylovslov 4y ago

Said who? You?

Gwypaas 4y ago
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  As more people are finally recognizing, LCOE is wholly unrelated to systems costs of large scale decarbonized systems. It assumes you have a free and giant fossil based grid hanging around to back you up when you hit a calm month.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    I do not get where you think that need of a fossil grid comes from? Seems like a hyperbole based on preconceived notions? Research has consistently shown that a 100% renewable grid is feasible and economically sound. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. > However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 Or we can take a look at Wikipedia for an even broader view > 100% renewable energy means getting all energy from renewable resources. The endeavor to use 100% renewable energy for electricity, heating, cooling and transport is motivated by climate change, pollution and other environmental issues, as well as economic and energy security concerns. > Research into this topic is fairly new, with very few studies published before 2009, but has gained increasing attention in recent years. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination – is feasible and economically viable.[5][6][7][8] A cross-sectoral, holistic approach is seen as an important feature of 100% renewable energy systems and is based on the assumption "that the best solutions can be found only if one focuses on the synergies between the sectors" of the energy system such as electricity, heat, transport or industry.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

throwuwu 4y ago

Do some research into Japans track record on building Nuclear. They’re one of the few countries that didn’t let green peace idiots ruin their regulatory bodies so they’re still able to build nuclear plants in the same amount of time it takes to build a coal burning plant.

mikeyouse 4y ago
They’re going to spend well over $100B and potentially up to $1T cleaning up Fukushima.. either figure would’ve been better spent on literally anything else.. hard to call Japan’s nuclear regulatory backdrop a success story. And I’m sorry, there’s absolutely no chance that the next reactor is built in under a decade. Working on Vogtle bankrupted Toshiba’s nuclear unit.
pfdietz 4y ago
This is an interesting take when regulatory capture enabled TEPCO to keep operating those plants that melted down even in the face of what should have been clearly dangerous compromises. People who complain about nuclear regulation are really just saying "let us have some meltdowns, they aren't really that bad." That's also why they go on saying mixed up nonsense about radiation hormesis.

koheripbal 4y ago

This is a pointless semantic argument, that it's even correct.