Yep, let's do that. Then on the other end we can write opinion pieces like this:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p...
The great thing about opinion pieces is everyone's always right in their own opinion piece.
Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
31–40 of 354 posts
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#32Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm
Too late in what sense? The problems time out and solve themselves?
Renewables got cheaper to the point where it's not competitive
Counter-argument: Wind and sun are unreliable
Counter-counter-argument: Why not build 10x the amount of wind and solar if it's so cheap, and automatically break the circuit when not needed?
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#33Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm
The dirty little secret is that renewables are consumable. They wear out and have to be replaced. Like discount shoes: they're cheap, they don't look good, and you throw them away after a while.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#34It is a shame that I see a title like this and my first thoughts are “who is paying for this article to be published” - is it genuinely someone with the right answer or an agenda - I would need to read the article then try to understand the particular points of view, instead I’ll do something else
What would someone have to gain out of this? And who? The biggest barrier to nuclear power is the initial cost and time required to turn a profit.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#35The International Monetary Fond, not known to be populated by treehugging hippies with naturalistic fallacies as a major character trait, published this beautiful graph: https://blogs.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/eng-april-4...
Nuclear now costs three times as much as solar & wind! And that data ist from 2017. Both technologies are also not showing any slowdown in improvements, while nuclear tends to get more expensive.
The trend for batteries happens to be extremely similar.
Nuclear is dead. Maybe people arguing against it in the 1980 were wrong. Maybe it’s safe. None of that matters, because it’s simply too expensive. And, increasingly, it’s also just too late: a nuclear power project takes 15 years, which is twice as much as we have.
The only energy that still keeps it in the news is this weird tie-in with the culture wars, where, apparently, a certain segment likes nuclear power because it’s big, ugly, dangerous and sciency. They are living the future of the past.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#36Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm
More expensive?Yeah, probably, because the alarmist message about nuclear has been the rhetoric for decades.I would argue nuclear is greener, yes, than some renewable sources like wind/solar (of whom the effects to our atmosphere and fauna are still vastly ignored or not documented enough).
Many people focus on carbon or some other element that in vast amounts is damaging to our climate, but forget the fact that animals,birds,and life in general can sustain and even undo the effects of pollution in some cases. A 0-carbon atmosphere is rendered useless if there are no birds, plants(which by the way USE it) or life (besides humans, presumably). People should look at the individuals/entities that push for climate _alarmist_ (not awareness, a distinction to be understood) messages and think beyond the political and economic gain that those entities benefit if such messages are to be followed.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#37We can't build reactors fast enough. And electricity is only a part of what generates emissions. It's no where close to a solution. Looking up the world's energy numbers, how much of total energy production and emissions are from electricity, how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, how many nuclear power plants are built per year etc. will show you this.
China is gonna build 150 reactors in 15 years for 440 billion dollar. They lack the defeatist attitude common in the West and it shows.
... and in the same time they build even more hydro and other renewables, with even more money. china is just using everything to stop being that dependant on coal. it's just that their governement just does not care and builds everything, because china needs more energy every year. they quadrupled their energy needs in the last years.
just because they build nuclear does not mean that they don't build other stuff.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#38It is a shame that I see a title like this and my first thoughts are “who is paying for this article to be published” - is it genuinely someone with the right answer or an agenda - I would need to read the article then try to understand the particular points of view, instead I’ll do something else
What would someone have to gain out of this? And who? The biggest barrier to nuclear power is the initial cost and time required to turn a profit.
Same people who killed Karen Silkwood, I guess.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#39Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm
More expensive?Yeah, probably, because the alarmist message about nuclear has been the rhetoric for decades.I would argue nuclear is greener, yes, than some renewable sources like wind/solar (of whom the effects to our atmosphere and fauna are still vastly ignored or not documented enough). Many people focus on carbon or some other element that in vast amounts is damaging to our climate, but forget the fact that anim…
I think talking about "no birds" is extreme, but I do agree that covering the planet with trillions of solar panels is not environmentally friendly. The size of the footprint has to be taken into account.
Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
#40Nuclear is one of a number of alternatives that needs to be seriously considered but due to the long timelines and high costs of nuclear it is also one of the best stalling tactics for the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the life of their assets. Possible increased adoption of nuclear in the future is not a reason to avoid setting sunset dates for emitting technologies now and commence transition to whatever low emission technologies are the most available and affordable right now.