3 ms·

The question is will these massive subsidises be better spent on nuclear or renewables and storage? Over the years nuclear has enjoyed enormous subsidies. If i

The question is will these massive subsidises be better spent on nuclear or renewables and storage? Over the years nuclear has enjoyed enormous subsidies. If it were not for the huge decrease in costs for renewables over the past couple of decades and huge increase in cost for nuclear I’d be much more enthusiastic about nuclear power.

Gud 3y ago
On both. Oil, gas and coal are the enemy here, not nuclear. I can’t believe that people are still arguing against nuclear. It’s an extremely proven technology. It can be built fast, cheap and safely.
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  I’m completely against closing existing nuclear plants as they are doing in Germany. The big problem with new nuclear energy seems to be build cost so it makes sense to get as much as we can from existing plants. But at the end of the day real resources matter. Where should labour effort be directed? Costs reflect that effort. I’m not against nuclear but if redirecting effort (money, labour) from nuclear to renewables and storage seems likely to reduce co2 emissions faster then let’s redirect that effort. It’s fine for cool technologies to be abandoned when cheaper alternatives come along. If it’s possible to come up with a far cheaper form of nuclear power then great! But it’s hard to compete with the big fusion reactor in the sky.
ETH_start 3y ago
I don't think we can go wrong having more options, so yes I'd support giving nuclear the same amount of subsidization that solar/wind received, and targetting it at the SMR market to get the benefits of standardization and off-site construction. The best case scenario is solar/wind, along with their associated storage systems, continuing to see rapid cost reductions, and nuclear, through SMRs, becoming vastly more affordable alongside them. The two classes of electricity generators would each find ideal use-cases and produce an energy system that provides electricity at a lower cost than either could provide on their own. To expand a bit more on nuclear: we've never made a good effort at bringing down its cost. The SMR option I outlined is the route to achieving that. Giant plants built mostly on-site just don't benefit from large markets the way transportable goods that can be built off-site do. The SMR industry needs subsidies while in its embryonic stage to have a chance of showing what it can do, with respect to cost-effective electricity generation, when it's more developed.

Gud 3y ago

On both. Oil, gas and coal are the enemy here, not nuclear. I can’t believe that people are still arguing against nuclear. It’s an extremely proven technology. It can be built fast, cheap and safely.

laurencerowe 3y ago
I’m completely against closing existing nuclear plants as they are doing in Germany. The big problem with new nuclear energy seems to be build cost so it makes sense to get as much as we can from existing plants. But at the end of the day real resources matter. Where should labour effort be directed? Costs reflect that effort. I’m not against nuclear but if redirecting effort (money, labour) from nuclear to renewables and storage seems likely to reduce co2 emissions faster then let’s redirect that effort. It’s fine for cool technologies to be abandoned when cheaper alternatives come along. If it’s possible to come up with a far cheaper form of nuclear power then great! But it’s hard to compete with the big fusion reactor in the sky.

ETH_start 3y ago

I don't think we can go wrong having more options, so yes I'd support giving nuclear the same amount of subsidization that solar/wind received, and targetting it at the SMR market to get the benefits of standardization and off-site construction. The best case scenario is solar/wind, along with their associated storage systems, continuing to see rapid cost reductions, and nuclear, through SMRs, becoming vastly more affordable alongside them. The two classes of electricity generators would each find ideal use-cases and produce an energy system that provides electricity at a lower cost than either could provide on their own. To expand a bit more on nuclear: we've never made a good effort at bringing down its cost. The SMR option I outlined is the route to achieving that. Giant plants built mostly on-site just don't benefit from large markets the way transportable goods that can be built off-site do. The SMR industry needs subsidies while in its embryonic stage to have a chance of showing what it can do, with respect to cost-effective electricity generation, when it's more developed.