4 ms·

A little more starkly, each dollar diverted from solar and wind to nukes and fossil fuels brings climate catastrophe nearer.

defrost 3y ago
It's easy to make an argument that sticks for fossil fuels - the IEA doesn't make that case for nuclear. They acknowledge that AGW is real and they push for an optimal path forward through energy transition .. and they don't see a downside to maintaining existing reactors and maintaining current share. Thank you for your opinion none the less.
roenxi 3y ago
That is a somewhat silly statement; obviously it only makes sense to build nuclear plants if the resulting energy is cheaper than the alternatives. And nuclear power is as the most environmentally friendly source of energy we know of. The argument, as it has been for about 40 years now, is that the people saying it is not cost competitive tend to have high overlap with people who are changing regulations to ... make it very expensive. If the regulatory framework was sane, it'd be quite cost competitive. The problem nuclear has is the economic learning curve has been inverted. That can only be caused by overregulation.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  > That can only be caused by overregulation. That reads like a creedal statement. We see the same effect in all regulatory jurisdictions, indicating the effect is instead intrinsic. A more fundamental observation is that the more we learn about building nukes, the more expensive they get.
ardaoweo 3y ago
Nuclear has its role to play when the weather isn't windy or sunny, at least until storage technology gets good enough. Especially in Northern parts of the world it's a big deal, because during winters solar is pretty useless. Getting rid of coal (and natural gas, to lesser extent) should happen ASAP, and nuclear can be a part of the solution for the transition period.

4 ms·

A little more starkly, each dollar diverted from solar and wind to nukes and fossil fuels brings climate catastrophe nearer.

by angiosperm 3y ago

defrost 3y ago
It's easy to make an argument that sticks for fossil fuels - the IEA doesn't make that case for nuclear. They acknowledge that AGW is real and they push for an optimal path forward through energy transition .. and they don't see a downside to maintaining existing reactors and maintaining current share. Thank you for your opinion none the less.
roenxi 3y ago
That is a somewhat silly statement; obviously it only makes sense to build nuclear plants if the resulting energy is cheaper than the alternatives. And nuclear power is as the most environmentally friendly source of energy we know of. The argument, as it has been for about 40 years now, is that the people saying it is not cost competitive tend to have high overlap with people who are changing regulations to ... make it very expensive. If the regulatory framework was sane, it'd be quite cost competitive. The problem nuclear has is the economic learning curve has been inverted. That can only be caused by overregulation.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  > That can only be caused by overregulation. That reads like a creedal statement. We see the same effect in all regulatory jurisdictions, indicating the effect is instead intrinsic. A more fundamental observation is that the more we learn about building nukes, the more expensive they get.
ardaoweo 3y ago
Nuclear has its role to play when the weather isn't windy or sunny, at least until storage technology gets good enough. Especially in Northern parts of the world it's a big deal, because during winters solar is pretty useless. Getting rid of coal (and natural gas, to lesser extent) should happen ASAP, and nuclear can be a part of the solution for the transition period.