There’s no way I’d get behind investing billions of dollars in a nuclear power plant - there’s just too much risk.
So you prefer coal? Gas? Hydro isn’t that ecofriendly either. Solar and wind are cute but unstable, you need a stable source to keep the grid going - and/or batteries, which aren’t that green either.
Perhaps if all the oil subsidies went to nuclear instead, a lot of way safer reactors would leave the drawing board. Nuclear didn’t stop evolving at Chernobyl you know.
frezik@midwest.social 1 year ago
Nuclear does not help. It has nothing to do with safety issues (perceived or otherwise), and everything to do with economics. It has not solved its cost issues, and probably won’t.
Solar and wind want to be mixed with some other tech that can ramp up when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Nuclear wants to stay at a steady pace all day long. They don’t work together. What will happen is to increase the times when solar and wind are overproducing and have to be shut off, thereby cutting into their economic advantages.
Fortunately, we don’t have to go all out with solar and wind. Getting to 95% solar and wind with a modest amount of storage capacity is fully achievable in less than a decade. Gas/coal plants would be turned on for a tiny fraction of the year. Getting that last 5% will take longer, but just getting that far will be a huge change.
There is no reasonable plan that gets us nuclear in less than a decade. SMRs are not going to be in full production before then. Traditional nuclear plants have taken at least 10 years to build after serious budget and schedule overruns. If you had all the permits signed and ready to go today, you would not be able to do it.
Now, I do hope we start putting SMRs in some less traditional places, like ships.
0x0@programming.dev 1 year ago
Interesting…