Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I’m incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.
With the price drop in renewables it just doesn’t make much sense economically
Why are people down voting this? I ask sincerely. I would have assumed the same thing.
It is an ideological thing with some people - it doesn’t matter what makes sense economically. You can find a comment on the same level as this one where someone is talking about lacking energy density. I value my time too high to start arguing against something I know is a bad faith argument and nothing will come of it.
Because nuclear has WAY more power generation than other renewables.
Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro won’t be able to keep up with electricity demand if we want to eliminate fossil fuels. The power density of nuclear just can’t be matched.
Are you sure about that? I just mean on account of that no being true!
You misunderstood what I’m saying. I’m not talking about what is powering things, I’m talking about what we need in order to power an all-electric future.
Nuclear has a much higher power capacity for generation than solar and wind.
If we want to replace the coal, natural gas, and oil in that graph, we’re going to need nuclear.
What we need now, to not transform earth into a postapocalyptic wasteland, are renewables. What type of electricity we use after that I don’t care about.
they have been pledging a lot of stuff for the last 30 or more years.
ill believe anything when i see it heppening.
Removed by mod
We have seen your previous pledges, we all know these are hollow promises.
It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years. There also isn’t much overlap with the resources needed for cheaper solar and wind. I’m just glad that it’s not more natural gas “bridge” plants.
It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years.
I was curious about this claim and checked out the IAEA website and just checked rabdom.coubtries and found several reactors that have been under construction for longer.
I have never heard of a power plant or new reactor of an existing plant in that time frame. Do you have examples?
The Soviets did that in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia#Reactors_in_operation
Also Japan did it as well with the BTR-4 design a bit later. That was the reactor type which had a melt down in Fukushima.
Offhand Wolseong in Korea brought thier two new reactors online in five and seven years, and have a nationwide average of six years. Qinshan in China brought two new Candean reactors online in four and five years, with a nationwide average of five years aswell.
As the other commenter mentioned Japan has systemicly built reactors in four years, though Fukushima 2 does well to demonstrate the danger or just running old American designs forever given how much better the modern reactors at the plant did than the older ones.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf
How short sighted. In a couple decades the same countries will try to find ways to unpollute their ground and water from the radiation leaking from all the wastw they produce
Nuclear is far from perfect, but countries have been exploiting it successfully and safely. France has been using it for 50 years, 70% of their households’ energy comes from it and it didn’t turn the country into a toxic wasteland.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of nuclear, blind fearmongering isn’t necessary.
