Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear is often touted as a carbon solution (especially here on HN!) but the enormous cost and long construction times make it somewhat ineffective at reducing emissions compared to other technologies. Given that governments and utilities operate with finite budgets, for each € invested in nuclear, we’re actually much better off investing in lower-cost, lower-risk projects and technologies (renewables, electrificati…
> for each € invested in nuclear, we’re actually much better off investing in lower-cost, lower-risk projects and technologies (renewables, electrification, heat pumps, grid upgrades, insulation, storage, etc) that deliver more carbon savings per € spent much more quickly. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think all those are key, and need to be focused on immediately. Those help to reduce demand, but (with the except…
To give you some sense of the enormity of the change, China over the first 9 months of 2023 built 215 TWh of wind and PV (numbers already adjusted for capacity factor), which eclipses the combined 206 TWh of every single nuclear power plant they have under construction today (there are 26 of them.)