3 ms·
Question away, your questioning is noted. Nuclear has a long lead time. Setting aside safety concerns, any realistic shift to accelerating nuclear would not h
by shermantanktop 3y ago
Question away, your questioning is noted.
Nuclear has a long lead time. Setting aside safety concerns, any realistic shift to accelerating nuclear would not help us much in the 10 year range. If we are most concerned about tipping points, which tbh appear real but impossible to predict, a nearer term but less effective shift to renewables would be warranted.
When I say “realistic” I mean in the current political and cultural climate. If we posit that we can do anything we want, dictator-style, that’s a thought experiment. At which point I’m totally with you: latest designs, aggressive funding and incentives for both r&d and actual projects, etc. That’d complement the progress we’ve made with renewables.
- stillbourne 3y ago> Setting aside safety concerns Nuclear is the safest energy source per kilo of fuel mined and spent.
- shermantanktop 3y agoThere are numerous ways to look at safety here. All else being equal, non-nuclear-weapon states wishing to arm with nuclear weapons would hate a total ban on nuclear energy, due to dual-use mining acting as a cover for their arms development. Is that a sufficient justification for actually imposing such a ban? I personally don’t think so, but reasonable people can disagree on that.
- realusername 3y agoI've heard this argument that it's too long to build 10 years ago as well, the best time to plant a tree is now I guess as the proverb says? And it's not like climate change will stop in the next 10 years anyways.