4 ms·
If you price in externalities, as we will have to do in order to slow down climate change, then nuclear is way less expensive than coal or gas. Also, other cou
by hedora 3y ago
If you price in externalities, as we will have to do in order to slow down climate change, then nuclear is way less expensive than coal or gas.
Also, other countries have historically been able to build plants on reasonable timeframes and budgets.
If there was political will, we could have a large fleet of nuclear plants in under a decade.
- crote 3y agoOh absolutely, but that's not going to make the comparison with solar and wind any better. It'd probably make carbon capture for gas a really interesting peaker solution, though! Considering that during the 1970s nuclear boom a single plant still took a decade to construct, there is simply no way we could possibly have a "large fleet" in under a decade. The only country with the capability of doing so is China - and they are not going to be of much use to Western countries.
- asynchronous 3y agoChina is living proof we could do it- they are currently on track to build a _reactor a year_. We let all our nuclear talent age out and die.
- epistasis 3y agoChina is not building nearly as much nuclear as they are solar, wind, and storage. A reactor a year is a pathetic pace! 1GW/year! Even I f the US matched that, we will see most of our nuclear fleet age out before it was replaced. For contrast, China is expected to be able to produce 6TWh/year of batteries in 2030, ~260 "gigafactories" worth: https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/over-400-gigafactories-in-2030-pipeline-but-overcapacity-fears-loom https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/over-400-gigafa... China's reluctance to invest as heavily in nuclear should be a clear sign that even with great competence at building nuclear, it's just not that attractive of a tech. It's barely functioning as a hedge, and is probably only being used for its side industries rather than as a serious power source.