3 ms·
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 so
by 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 agoI haven't seen anyone do that.