3 ms·

What’s your point? Hydro and nuclear are pretty dead technologies. Hydro hurts the surrounding environment and nuclear has massive cost overruns and may require

What’s your point? Hydro and nuclear are pretty dead technologies. Hydro hurts the surrounding environment and nuclear has massive cost overruns and may require water for cooling. Wind and solar comparatively are much easier to deploy and recoup costs.

acidburnNSA 2y ago
I think we can all agree that the reporting should at least mention what makes up a full half of the clean energy being celebrated.
- muldvarp 2y ago
  The entire point of the article is that renewables are growing and that growth is entirely due to solar and wind.
  - acidburnNSA 2y ago
    We have 2 billion new watts of nuclear on the grid in the last few years, and more coming with uprates and massive demand from hyperscalers. The goal here isn't wind and solar. It's clean energy in general.
    - muldvarp 2y ago
      > We have 2 billion new watts of nuclear on the grid in the last few years Because two nuclear reactors came online in the last two years (after massive delays and cost overruns). In the last 29 years the US built three new nuclear reactors (the construction of two more was cancelled). How many watts of nuclear were shut down in that time span? > and more coming with uprates and massive demand from hyperscalers I'll believe it when I see it. > The goal here isn't wind and solar. It's clean energy in general. I agree. I don't think nuclear is bad. I'm just describing what is happening in the US: Solar and wind are growing fast, nuclear is struggling.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The more important headline is this: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electricity-surpasses-40-of-world-electricity/ https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electric... America might get a sizeable portion of it's clean electricity from nuclear, but the rest of the world certainly doesn't.
xeromal 2y ago
Power grids need a mix of sources and nuclear is best suited for handling a baseline of power while batteries, wind, and solar handle the flexible portions.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  You seem to be working backwards from having decided that we must give enormous handouts to the nuclear industry. Oil has in all but name stopped being used as an energy source. There is no inherent need for nuclear power, especially not at modern western new build costs of 18-20 cents/kWh. What you are saying is that renewables and storage will at their most strained be able to handle the peaking load. In California the base load is ~15 GW and peak load 50 GW. So with your logic the renewables can when they deliver the least handle 35 GW of peak load. Why would we use extremely expensive nuclear power for "baseload" when the way cheaper and more effective technology literally handles 2x the power when it the most strained?
kllrnohj 2y ago
Nuclear is politically dead, maybe, but it's absolutely the technology we need right now and should be using a hell of a lot more than we are. Solar and wind are great, but they need massive grid storage systems that we don't really have great options for. Nuclear is the consistent, safe power that everyone should be using as their core power solution, with solar & wind augmenting it.
- acidburnNSA 2y ago
  New surveys just came out showing record breaking support for nuclear. 61% approval! It's even seeing potential revivals in Germany. There's strong bi-partisan support for nuclear in the US. I don't think calling it politically dead is right these days.
  - muldvarp 2y ago
    > It's even seeing potential revivals in Germany. No, it isn't. The CSU ran with nuclear revival as one of their campaign promises and there seems to be some support for it among the population but it's nowhere to be found in the coalition agreement between CDU/CSU and SPD. Söder (the leader of the CSU) already backpaddled as well. Really the only possibility for a nuclear revival in Germany would be a coalition between the climate-change-downplaying CDU/CSU and the straight-up-climate-change-denying AfD and I doubt that would be good for Germany's fight against climate change.
- pjc50 2y ago
  It cannot be the technology of "right now" because it takes way too long to build. The UK has had a plant under construction for about a decade.
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    Sure it can, just look at France, it had over 70% electricity from nuclear in 2018. Now sure the best time to have invested heavily in nuclear reactors was 30-40 years ago, but we still could today. The payoff won't be for 5-10 years, but wind & sun are never going to have continuous availability until we figure out space solar, after all.

acidburnNSA 2y ago

I think we can all agree that the reporting should at least mention what makes up a full half of the clean energy being celebrated.

muldvarp 2y ago
The entire point of the article is that renewables are growing and that growth is entirely due to solar and wind.
- acidburnNSA 2y ago
  We have 2 billion new watts of nuclear on the grid in the last few years, and more coming with uprates and massive demand from hyperscalers. The goal here isn't wind and solar. It's clean energy in general.
  - muldvarp 2y ago
    > We have 2 billion new watts of nuclear on the grid in the last few years Because two nuclear reactors came online in the last two years (after massive delays and cost overruns). In the last 29 years the US built three new nuclear reactors (the construction of two more was cancelled). How many watts of nuclear were shut down in that time span? > and more coming with uprates and massive demand from hyperscalers I'll believe it when I see it. > The goal here isn't wind and solar. It's clean energy in general. I agree. I don't think nuclear is bad. I'm just describing what is happening in the US: Solar and wind are growing fast, nuclear is struggling.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
The more important headline is this: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electricity-surpasses-40-of-world-electricity/ https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electric... America might get a sizeable portion of it's clean electricity from nuclear, but the rest of the world certainly doesn't.

xeromal 2y ago

Power grids need a mix of sources and nuclear is best suited for handling a baseline of power while batteries, wind, and solar handle the flexible portions.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
You seem to be working backwards from having decided that we must give enormous handouts to the nuclear industry. Oil has in all but name stopped being used as an energy source. There is no inherent need for nuclear power, especially not at modern western new build costs of 18-20 cents/kWh. What you are saying is that renewables and storage will at their most strained be able to handle the peaking load. In California the base load is ~15 GW and peak load 50 GW. So with your logic the renewables can when they deliver the least handle 35 GW of peak load. Why would we use extremely expensive nuclear power for "baseload" when the way cheaper and more effective technology literally handles 2x the power when it the most strained?

kllrnohj 2y ago

Nuclear is politically dead, maybe, but it's absolutely the technology we need right now and should be using a hell of a lot more than we are. Solar and wind are great, but they need massive grid storage systems that we don't really have great options for. Nuclear is the consistent, safe power that everyone should be using as their core power solution, with solar & wind augmenting it.

acidburnNSA 2y ago
New surveys just came out showing record breaking support for nuclear. 61% approval! It's even seeing potential revivals in Germany. There's strong bi-partisan support for nuclear in the US. I don't think calling it politically dead is right these days.
- muldvarp 2y ago
  > It's even seeing potential revivals in Germany. No, it isn't. The CSU ran with nuclear revival as one of their campaign promises and there seems to be some support for it among the population but it's nowhere to be found in the coalition agreement between CDU/CSU and SPD. Söder (the leader of the CSU) already backpaddled as well. Really the only possibility for a nuclear revival in Germany would be a coalition between the climate-change-downplaying CDU/CSU and the straight-up-climate-change-denying AfD and I doubt that would be good for Germany's fight against climate change.
pjc50 2y ago
It cannot be the technology of "right now" because it takes way too long to build. The UK has had a plant under construction for about a decade.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  Sure it can, just look at France, it had over 70% electricity from nuclear in 2018. Now sure the best time to have invested heavily in nuclear reactors was 30-40 years ago, but we still could today. The payoff won't be for 5-10 years, but wind & sun are never going to have continuous availability until we figure out space solar, after all.