3 ms·

the problem with this argument is that we've been hearing it for the last 40 years - we could have had multiple generations of nuclear by now if it wasn't for t

• anovikov 2y ago
  What were the potential alternatives to nuclear electricity 20-30 years, let alone 40 years ago (not counting fossil fuels, of course)? Today, wind produces about as much and probably a bit more electricity as nuclear (~12% less last year and growing quickly), next year, solar will produce more. There are no nimbys in non-free countries, and nuclear has been pretty much stuck there, too.
  • exe34 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
    • anovikov 2y ago
      That's what i call "stuck". Solar went from essentially zero to a larger share of generation than nuclear in China, in 5 years. In the same time, nuclear has stopped growing there. China commissions a few nuclear reactors per year and ~400 GW per year of solar and wind. When comparing nuclear in China, we need to compare it with... well other things that happen in China. Which are on a completely different scale vs rest of the world combined. Nuclear power progress might seem impressive there compared to rest of the world, but not at all compared to other things that are being done in China itself.
• pfdietz 2y ago
  > if it wasn't for the nimbys But the nimbys weren't the problem, it was the financiers. Nuclear has been too expensive compared to alternatives. It's always about the money.