Nuclear is good. I used to be against it. I get the reasons why. But the reality is we have a very limited amount of time to get to zero carbon emissions. Solar and wind are great but they can't handle the global energy by themselves yet, even if you assume massive reductions in energy consumption. Nuclear is the bridge technology, and hopefully in like 40-50 years we can shutter every nuclear plant. But until then...
I would argue it's the other way around. Nuclear plants take a long ass time to plan, let alone build. Using solar and wind as a bridge to building worker controller nuclear plants is my thesis.
But they don't produce enough energy and are incredibly resource intensive for the energy they generate. There's not enough raw minerals to generate renewable electric for the globe right now with current tech
That's why it's a bridge to nuclear. All the nuclear tech in this thread is being talked about as if it's real but it's mostly theory and testing will increasing the time frame.
Like, there are wind farms and solar farms being built right now. Nuclear plants aren't.
There's quite a few papers and reviews of papers that talk about the time frame issues with nuclear. What people in this thread don't understand is that most of what you are repeating is lobbying material.
Wind and solar is being built because there's massive subsidies right now and very little for nuke. Solar panels are easy to commodify. Nuke power plants are more difficult
I agree but we have to remember that we won't inherit a perfect world if we have a successful revolution. We will have to make do with what is available.
they do produce enough energy and are cheaper, UK energy prices are said to fall in the future because their wind farms have proven to be so good and cheap
They don't produce enough for the entire world my friend. Wind still only amounts to less than 5% of power generation globally. And what do you do when the wind is blowing and it's night out? You either need massive battery installations or baseline power from nukes
They don’t produce enough for the entire world my friend.
not at the moment, true
Wind still only amounts to less than 5% of power generation globally.
True and even at just 5% it is profitable without subsidies in many places!!
And what do you do when the wind is blowing and it’s night out?
Wind blows at night and on a whole continent there is wind pretty much somewhere at all times, also at night power usage is a lot lower and also there are pretty clever solutions for this, not just one solution but a multitude of different things that can be done and already are done.
You either need massive battery installations or baseline power from nukes
The nukes that already exist should be kept until every carbon plant is shut down, so they'll stay with us for a while anyways and yeah, some battery installations already exist and lots of stuff is being developed.
Modern cycled natural gas plants output the almost exactly the same lifetime co2 as nuclear plants when you account for construction, decommissioning, and dismantling because of the huge amount of concrete these plants require. Though to be fair, this does ignore methane leaks from gas wells, so you win some and you lose some I guess.
Nuclear is good. I used to be against it. I get the reasons why. But the reality is we have a very limited amount of time to get to zero carbon emissions. Solar and wind are great but they can't handle the global energy by themselves yet, even if you assume massive reductions in energy consumption. Nuclear is the bridge technology, and hopefully in like 40-50 years we can shutter every nuclear plant. But until then...
I would argue it's the other way around. Nuclear plants take a long ass time to plan, let alone build. Using solar and wind as a bridge to building worker controller nuclear plants is my thesis.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don't see how that is possibly true.
You don't think that China sacrifices safety for that time frame?
Honestly natural gas is the bridge to nukes which is a bridge to solar and wind
Solar and wind farms take less time to build now than nuclear plants take to plan. This makes no sense at all.
But they don't produce enough energy and are incredibly resource intensive for the energy they generate. There's not enough raw minerals to generate renewable electric for the globe right now with current tech
That's why it's a bridge to nuclear. All the nuclear tech in this thread is being talked about as if it's real but it's mostly theory and testing will increasing the time frame.
Like, there are wind farms and solar farms being built right now. Nuclear plants aren't.
There's quite a few papers and reviews of papers that talk about the time frame issues with nuclear. What people in this thread don't understand is that most of what you are repeating is lobbying material.
Wind and solar is being built because there's massive subsidies right now and very little for nuke. Solar panels are easy to commodify. Nuke power plants are more difficult
I agree but we have to remember that we won't inherit a perfect world if we have a successful revolution. We will have to make do with what is available.
deleted by creator
they do produce enough energy and are cheaper, UK energy prices are said to fall in the future because their wind farms have proven to be so good and cheap
They don't produce enough for the entire world my friend. Wind still only amounts to less than 5% of power generation globally. And what do you do when the wind is blowing and it's night out? You either need massive battery installations or baseline power from nukes
not at the moment, true
True and even at just 5% it is profitable without subsidies in many places!!
Wind blows at night and on a whole continent there is wind pretty much somewhere at all times, also at night power usage is a lot lower and also there are pretty clever solutions for this, not just one solution but a multitude of different things that can be done and already are done.
The nukes that already exist should be kept until every carbon plant is shut down, so they'll stay with us for a while anyways and yeah, some battery installations already exist and lots of stuff is being developed.
Modern cycled natural gas plants output the almost exactly the same lifetime co2 as nuclear plants when you account for construction, decommissioning, and dismantling because of the huge amount of concrete these plants require. Though to be fair, this does ignore methane leaks from gas wells, so you win some and you lose some I guess.