3 ms·
I did the math on this myself earlier to understand the problem. Solar is VERY expensive if you include storage, if you can even get it. We will need natural ga
by foxyv 4y ago
I did the math on this myself earlier to understand the problem. Solar is VERY expensive if you include storage, if you can even get it. We will need natural gas and coal until we do. In the future I expect that this will change as battery production gets off the ground at the scale we need. But that will take a lot of time we don't have.
Nuclear makes a lot of sense if we want to be off coal and natural gas in the next 5-10 years. If we want to burn fossil fuels until 2060 then solar and wind are okay I guess. There is a reason that fossil fuel companies lobby heavily against nuclear and fund immense campaigns against it. It's a direct competitor. Solar and battery on the other hand are just barely off the ground right now.
- tuatoru 4y agoNuclear reactors typically take about 100 months to build--and that's just the construction phase, not the pre-construction design and permitting--so no, they won't help in the next 5 - 10 years. 1. https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
- foxyv 4y agoThe article you posted said 6-8 years. 100 months is in the US due to the legal and political climate that supports fossil fuel generation. In the US there is even backlash against wind power of all things... It's part of the reason why nuclear plants are built so large in the US. This is one problem I have with anti-nuclear propaganda. It uses the fact that it's been so successful at destroying nuclear power, as evidence that it's right in the first place.