21–30 of 83 posts
I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)
question, why aren't we building more nuclear power plant like china? isn't gen 4 reactor safer?
Because even in china they can't build nuclear as quickly (and likely as cheaply) as wind and solar. It's hugely different [0][1]. Over the last 10 years, they used 3.5x more energy (so not nameplate capacity, but actually generated energy) from solar and wind than they did from nuclear. Further, if you download the data [1] an look at the derivative you get an even more grim picture. Not only is wind and solar incre…
> “Radioactive pollutants build up in the cooling water,” said Judson. “In order for the plant to continue functioning properly, they have to discharge them. Some of it is vented out of the smokestack and some of it is released into the water.” Is there any truth to that? That is not how I thought a nuclear power plant worked.
> “Radioactive pollutants build up in the cooling water,” said Judson. “In order for the plant to continue functioning properly, they have to discharge them. Some of it is vented out of the smokestack and some of it is released into the water.” Is there any truth to that? That is not how I thought a nuclear power plant worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because even in china they can't build nuclear as quickly (and likely as cheaply) as wind and solar. It's hugely different [0][1]. Over the last 10 years, they used 3.5x more energy (so not nameplate capacity, but actually generated energy) from solar and wind than they did from nuclear. Further, if you download the data [1] an look at the derivative you get an even more grim picture. Not only is wind and solar incre…
How is solar and wind energy rapidly increasing “grim”?
But it is pretty damning that a country that is motivated and willing to put its money where its mouth is, is also having troubles making it happen quickly.
I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)
One could argue it is necessary but it is undeniable that it is not effective -- nuclear power plants take decades to bring online and then they may never see break-even. Not only that but they require vast sums of water for the entire lifetime of the nuclear plant (which is fast becoming a scarcity, if not because of increased consumption but also because of changing water availability.)
On the other hand, renewable (wind and solar) can be brought up MW by MW, on a much faster timescale, privately funded (all nuclear is publicly funded now), and it has much better unit economics even without subsidies. Renewable energy is here to stay, it is going to become more abundant, and it is going to become more reliable with each passing year.
Nuclear is as unreliable as ever, even after 70 years of modernization, the economics of scale, and unlimited access to the public purse.
> “Radioactive pollutants build up in the cooling water,” said Judson. “In order for the plant to continue functioning properly, they have to discharge them. Some of it is vented out of the smokestack and some of it is released into the water.” Is there any truth to that? That is not how I thought a nuclear power plant worked.
Think about it terms of throwing bananas into the water
So many more apropos sayings instead like "tears in the rain" or "drops in the ocean"
I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose new nuclear on cost grounds; solar/wind are really cheap now.
But lots of people seem to oversimplify to “nuclear bad”.
> “Radioactive pollutants build up in the cooling water,” said Judson. “In order for the plant to continue functioning properly, they have to discharge them. Some of it is vented out of the smokestack and some of it is released into the water.” Is there any truth to that? That is not how I thought a nuclear power plant worked.
I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)