3 ms·

> Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course. It's rather s

> Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course. It's rather strange that the most ardent Climate Crusaders are against nuclear power, too.

throwaway290 3y ago
Absolutely. Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of energy, if we are talking lots and lots of energy.
marssaxman 3y ago
Advocacy for nuclear power would have made sense back in the '80s and '90s, but it's too late now; renewables cost half as much and come on line ten times faster. The ROI just isn't there for nuclear.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  Wind/solar are always wind/solar + something else. That something else is usually pipelined gas.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    That's true, but I am talking about the economic problem: who is going to spend $30 billion on a decade-long project to build a nuclear plant, when the same money could buy twice as many megawatts' worth of renewables and start returning on the investment in a year? Of course it would be a good thing for us all if someone would replace all those gas plants with nuclear, but it's hard to see why anyone who had the money to do that would choose to spend it that way.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      If our safety requirements for wind and solar were as onerous as they are for nuclear power, then the economic equation would be completely flipped around. (Plus we currently don't have the wind/solar providers pay for the gas plants -- and the costs of ensuring a constant supply of gas. That cost is currently measured in leopard tanks and stinger missiles... and in Ukrainian soldiers but that's an externality we are not paying for.) How do we change that? Advocate for nuclear power. Tell every nasty little "green" politician that we hate them and their lies.
- nonplus 3y ago
  I don't really want to debate this. I think you chose your wording advocacy instead of just nuclear for a reason. I would just add every environment is not equally suited to each type of power generation. Each environment needs a different peak load. Batteries can get you through a single peak when sized well, at large expense. We don't want natural gas to be the fallback for renewables universally.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
No it doesn’t. Shut down the oil and gas, and let the utilities figure out the cheapest way to get us energy. Choosing which technology to use is their expertise.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  Do they currently have the freedom to do that? Not in my country. The anti-nuclear lobby won that battle decades ago... and there is huge government interference in our energy infrastructure.
babelthuap 3y ago
The Paris Climate Agreements never addresses nuclear in France which last time I checked was around 70% of their energy. Obviously something is very backwards with the setting of these agreements. Everyone knows nuclear is our best option right now except advocates for wind and solar since they lose money. It should be the Paris Nuclear Agreements end of the day...meh.
jacooper 3y ago
100%

throwaway290 3y ago

Absolutely. Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of energy, if we are talking lots and lots of energy.

marssaxman 3y ago

Advocacy for nuclear power would have made sense back in the '80s and '90s, but it's too late now; renewables cost half as much and come on line ten times faster. The ROI just isn't there for nuclear.

peterfirefly 3y ago
Wind/solar are always wind/solar + something else. That something else is usually pipelined gas.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  That's true, but I am talking about the economic problem: who is going to spend $30 billion on a decade-long project to build a nuclear plant, when the same money could buy twice as many megawatts' worth of renewables and start returning on the investment in a year? Of course it would be a good thing for us all if someone would replace all those gas plants with nuclear, but it's hard to see why anyone who had the money to do that would choose to spend it that way.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    If our safety requirements for wind and solar were as onerous as they are for nuclear power, then the economic equation would be completely flipped around. (Plus we currently don't have the wind/solar providers pay for the gas plants -- and the costs of ensuring a constant supply of gas. That cost is currently measured in leopard tanks and stinger missiles... and in Ukrainian soldiers but that's an externality we are not paying for.) How do we change that? Advocate for nuclear power. Tell every nasty little "green" politician that we hate them and their lies.
nonplus 3y ago
I don't really want to debate this. I think you chose your wording advocacy instead of just nuclear for a reason. I would just add every environment is not equally suited to each type of power generation. Each environment needs a different peak load. Batteries can get you through a single peak when sized well, at large expense. We don't want natural gas to be the fallback for renewables universally.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

No it doesn’t. Shut down the oil and gas, and let the utilities figure out the cheapest way to get us energy. Choosing which technology to use is their expertise.

peterfirefly 3y ago
Do they currently have the freedom to do that? Not in my country. The anti-nuclear lobby won that battle decades ago... and there is huge government interference in our energy infrastructure.

babelthuap 3y ago

The Paris Climate Agreements never addresses nuclear in France which last time I checked was around 70% of their energy. Obviously something is very backwards with the setting of these agreements. Everyone knows nuclear is our best option right now except advocates for wind and solar since they lose money. It should be the Paris Nuclear Agreements end of the day...meh.

jacooper 3y ago

100%