Renewable instead of nuclear, but nuclear instead of coal.
We need a mix. Centralization isn’t the biggest problem. Literally anything we can do to reduce emissions is worth doing, and we won’t be going 100% on anything, so best to get started on the long term projects now so that we can stop turning on new plants based on combustion.
The main problem with nuclear power plants isn’t the radiation or the waste or the risk of accident. It’s that they cost so damn much they’re rarely profitable, especially in open electricity markets. 70-80% of the cost of the electricity is building the plant, and without low interest rates and a guaranteed rate when finished it doesn’t make economic sense to build them.
The latest nuclear plant in the US is in Georgia and is $17 billion over budget and seven years later than expected.
The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.
rarely profitable
Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn’t able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.
And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren’t killing the planet.
Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won’t come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?
We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.
You cannot run the entire grid on entirely renewable. We physically don’t have enough lithium in the world to make the batteries for it, and even if you don’t use lithium there would be untold ecological destruction to extract the rare earths.
Renewable and hydroelectric is a solution but not viable everywhere and hydro also causes massive ecological destruction
If we started building nuclear powerplants right now it would take 10-20 years before they’re even online. That’s 10-20 years worth of technology improvements that could make it obsolete, especially if we don’t pin our hopes on nuclear baseload and start building a grid that can be 100% renewable.
And that’s not even mentioning the truly massive budget overruns. Or the environmental impact of mining and refining fuel.
And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you’re not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don’t exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?
Nuclear plants are immensely profitable, just not on time scales politicians are interested in. You’re deep in the red for 10-20 years and then after that it prints money
So after 10-20 years of construction and cost overruns and 10-20 years of operating at a loss you start making money.
And that’s assuming electricity rates don’t drop in that time. Which they are as renewables get deployed more and more because they don’t go 100% over budget in time and money.
If we get started building nuclear power plants now, how much will storage and transmission tech improve before they’re even completed, let alone profitable?
It’s not 10-20 years of construction AND 10-20 years at a loss, it’s 10-20 years of construction at a loss. Not great, but up to 40 years as you suggest sounds a lot worse because it’s a misrepresentation.
Renewable instead of nuclear, but nuclear instead of coal.
We need a mix. Centralization isn’t the biggest problem. Literally anything we can do to reduce emissions is worth doing, and we won’t be going 100% on anything, so best to get started on the long term projects now so that we can stop turning on new plants based on combustion.
Even if it takes 2 decades to get a new plant going, it’s a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels we don’t need any more, and therefore worth doing.
If it isn’t fossil fuels, it’s automatically better.
The main problem with nuclear power plants isn’t the radiation or the waste or the risk of accident. It’s that they cost so damn much they’re rarely profitable, especially in open electricity markets. 70-80% of the cost of the electricity is building the plant, and without low interest rates and a guaranteed rate when finished it doesn’t make economic sense to build them.
The latest nuclear plant in the US is in Georgia and is $17 billion over budget and seven years later than expected.
The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.
Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn’t able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.
And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren’t killing the planet.
Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won’t come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?
We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.
That’s your opinion. I think funding nuclear is just burning money and wasting time we don’t have.
You cannot run the entire grid on entirely renewable. We physically don’t have enough lithium in the world to make the batteries for it, and even if you don’t use lithium there would be untold ecological destruction to extract the rare earths.
Renewable and hydroelectric is a solution but not viable everywhere and hydro also causes massive ecological destruction
If we started building nuclear powerplants right now it would take 10-20 years before they’re even online. That’s 10-20 years worth of technology improvements that could make it obsolete, especially if we don’t pin our hopes on nuclear baseload and start building a grid that can be 100% renewable.
And that’s not even mentioning the truly massive budget overruns. Or the environmental impact of mining and refining fuel.
And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you’re not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don’t exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?
Nuclear plants are immensely profitable, just not on time scales politicians are interested in. You’re deep in the red for 10-20 years and then after that it prints money
So after 10-20 years of construction and cost overruns and 10-20 years of operating at a loss you start making money.
And that’s assuming electricity rates don’t drop in that time. Which they are as renewables get deployed more and more because they don’t go 100% over budget in time and money.
If we get started building nuclear power plants now, how much will storage and transmission tech improve before they’re even completed, let alone profitable?
It’s not 10-20 years of construction AND 10-20 years at a loss, it’s 10-20 years of construction at a loss. Not great, but up to 40 years as you suggest sounds a lot worse because it’s a misrepresentation.