3 ms·

> If we could have deployed nuclear immediately and infinitely when those folks were talking, they would have been right. We could t. If we are talking about t

> If we could have deployed nuclear immediately and infinitely when those folks were talking, they would have been right. We could t. If we are talking about the US, the reason we couldn't deploy nuclear was that we vastly over-ordered the amount of reactors we needed, going into the 1980s, causing a glut then a drought. And then too many of them were financially disastrous construction projects. Some people say that we had too many different reactor designs, but I would point to France where they used the same reactor design but also did not see falling prices, and did not build nearly as many reactors as they had planned. Certainly France has been much better off in terms of carbon emissions from electricity since the 1980s than most places in the world, but they were also going nuclear due to lack of cheap fossil fuels. > If we could solar and batteries immediately and infinitely (without increasing prices), going all in on it would be right. We can’t. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying we aren't going all in on solar and storage, but I would argue that we are. Nearly all new generation capacity getting installed is solar, storage, and wind. THere's a few legacy projects for other technologies, but those natural gas plants will see little use, unless solar/storage/batteries are blocked from being deployed in the same area. EIA: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62864 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62864 This is happening in China too. They build coal plants, but they barely use them as they are just backups. Last I heard they are on track for 160GW of solar deployed this year alone, and it goes up every year. So maybe put me into the bucket of people spouting nonsense about solar + batteries today, I could be wrong, but I really think it's the only tech stack that can and will make a big change in energy over the next 10 years.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> Certainly France has been much better off in terms of carbon emissions from electricity since the 1980s than most places in the world, but they were also going nuclear due to lack of cheap fossil fuels. That's the point: 2024's solar is better than 1980's nuclear, but in the meantime we've pumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere we didn't have to.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  It's difficult to see the relevance of your point. Are you saying we should build nuclear now because we didn't then? That would make no sense. This isn't some sort of arena where we have to be fair to inanimate objects.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > difficult to see the relevance of your point. Are you saying we should build nuclear now because we didn't then The same statement will be true in twenty years. We’re not building gas generators because they’re pretty. We have power demand growth well ahead of our solar and wind deployment potential, even assuming the rosiest production growth forecasts for the next ten years. That gap is being filled with natural gas, based on infrastructure with 20 to 40-year financing timelines. Not building a nuclear plant today means more gas generators burning through the 2060s. (I’m assuming we build and deploy solar and wind as quickly as possible, too.)
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      > We have power demand growth well ahead of our solar and wind deployment potential Justify that statement, please. What is preventing us from installing that much wind and solar? If anything, nuclear's deployment potential is much more limited.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Are you saying we should build nuclear now because we didn't then? No, that would be a large comprehension error. I'm making the point because people seem to use what solar and wind can finally do now to justify us not having built nuclear 40 years ago.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      I haven't seen anyone do that.
- mrguyorama 2y ago

robertlagrant 2y ago

> Certainly France has been much better off in terms of carbon emissions from electricity since the 1980s than most places in the world, but they were also going nuclear due to lack of cheap fossil fuels. That's the point: 2024's solar is better than 1980's nuclear, but in the meantime we've pumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere we didn't have to.

pfdietz 2y ago
It's difficult to see the relevance of your point. Are you saying we should build nuclear now because we didn't then? That would make no sense. This isn't some sort of arena where we have to be fair to inanimate objects.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > difficult to see the relevance of your point. Are you saying we should build nuclear now because we didn't then The same statement will be true in twenty years. We’re not building gas generators because they’re pretty. We have power demand growth well ahead of our solar and wind deployment potential, even assuming the rosiest production growth forecasts for the next ten years. That gap is being filled with natural gas, based on infrastructure with 20 to 40-year financing timelines. Not building a nuclear plant today means more gas generators burning through the 2060s. (I’m assuming we build and deploy solar and wind as quickly as possible, too.)
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    > We have power demand growth well ahead of our solar and wind deployment potential Justify that statement, please. What is preventing us from installing that much wind and solar? If anything, nuclear's deployment potential is much more limited.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Are you saying we should build nuclear now because we didn't then? No, that would be a large comprehension error. I'm making the point because people seem to use what solar and wind can finally do now to justify us not having built nuclear 40 years ago.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I haven't seen anyone do that.
mrguyorama 2y ago