4 ms·
Nuclear energy seems to have been mostly opposed by the same people who want green energy. We can have the best of all worlds, no need to slow down on renewable
by proc0 2y ago
Nuclear energy seems to have been mostly opposed by the same people who want green energy. We can have the best of all worlds, no need to slow down on renewables, but there was some serious hesitation on nuclear up until recently. I'm glad that's changing.
- vendiddy 2y agoWhat worries me about nuclear is that it requires sophistication to maintain. And that's not a fixed thing. Just look at Boeing safety today vs two decades ago. Why not go all in on solar?
- numpad0 2y agoLand, land, land. There are no readily available, flat, unused land to put up all the solar panels in most developed countries, especially without massive environment consequences. US is an exception to that, nowhere near the mean.
- underseacables 2y agoNevada, Arizona, Utah.. there is an obscene amount of readily available, flat, unused land. Best of all, most of it is federally owned.
- proc0 2y agoThat's a fair concern but it seems the tech has matured a lot and it's at least as safe with maybe the dangers of unforeseen natural disasters like what happened with Fukushima. Solar is still being held back by battery tech, at least for scaling properly from my limited understanding. Then there is the problem of efficiency in places with less sunlight like a lot of northern cities. I think it will definitely be the best option for sunny places once there is cheap and dense batteries.
- rdm_blackhole 2y agoThe fact that the Green party in Germany is against nuclear power is all you need to know that these people are not serious about climate change. If your goal is to de-carbonize the economy as quickly as possible, then anything better than natural gas or coal should be good enough. Then, when the last gas plant and the last coal plant have been closed, we can talk about closing down nuclear plants if and when solar PV and wind ramp up to the appropriate levels. That is what Australia is doing, as it adds more wind and EV production, coal plants are being closed 1 by 1 in an orderly fashion. Instead in Germany, they did it in reverse and found themselves in a position of weakness when Russia invaded Ukraine.
- defrost 2y ago> That is what Australia is doing, as it adds more wind and EV production, .. but not (just to be clear) adding nuclear. There's a solid Australian national science report that's extremely clear that within Australia nuclear makes zero economic sense (for many dull pragmatic reasons). Largely due to a total lack of at home nuclear experience and talent, a very long run up to any nuclear return, and a booming renewables industry that's growing so fast the race will be over by the time nuclear can deliver anything. Also, to be clear, there is one side of the political aisle that is championing nuclear .. less as a solution, more as a distraction from their chronic AGW denial and lack of any other strategy. Their "plan" in a nutshell is "just continue in as we are" until {insert <magic> happens} and "eventually nuclear". This is less a roadmap and more fairy dust and wishful thinking.
- rdm_blackhole 2y agoI never said they added nuclear power. I said they close coal plants as they add solar PV and Wind. I am not advocating for Australia to build nuclear plants. I am simply saying that they are trying to organise the transition properly by not removing coal plants too early.
- defrost 2y agoIt was uncertain what you intended re: nuclear with your comment, particularly with the German preamble. I merely sought to clarify what the actual situation in Australia was for the benefit of third party readers who may have taken an unintended implication from that.