No, in my world tomorrow’s grid uses whatever delivers reliable electricity at the lowest total cost: solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, storage, and yes, nuclear if it can compete. This isn’t a religion with approved energy sources. It’s an engineering problem with a price tag, and nobody gets bonus points for glowing in the dark.
Exactly, this is an engineering problem. You’re talking it like it’s an accounting one. Reliability, emergency use, redundancy, generating potential and universal scalability are the most important factors. Cost is a completely separate issue governed by separate factors, many of which are 100% artificial.
Cost is the single largest factor in the deployment of new power plants, and solar is just impossible to match right now.
You could spend literally decades and billions building a nuclear plant, or start deploying solar right this minute and immediately reap the rewards of that investment.
You could say that the numbers scribbled down on pieces of paper next to a dollar sign are artificial or miscalculated, but the invested manpower and resources and time (and a large number of other consequences) are all very real, and translate into a cost.
Is your stance we should not have a diverse grid? Because that’s the only point I’ve really made this whole time. The more methods we have to produce electricity and the more redundancy the better. Currently active nuclear plants produce the cheapest power. Building new is more expensive, sure. That doesn’t mean we abandon the tech and soley focus on one solution. This has been my entire higher education and professional career.
yes i know that, genius. the point is that is not an argument people are using for nuclear. it’s a blatant straw man from someone clearly not engaging in a goood faith discussion.
That’s kind of the point; it’s not a straw man, it’s saying that the options should be considered on their merits not on irrelevancies. “There are no bonus points added to the scoring just because nuclear looks cool when it glows”
Not among the general population, but among internet nerd culture, nuclear has a certain level of support purely for cultural reasons. There’s a culture of people on the internet who like nuclear primarily as a cultural shibboleth. If you can convince yourself that the only reason nuclear hasn’t taken off is due to unreasonable fear and technical illiteracy, then supporting nuclear is extremely self-affirming. Supporting nuclear is a way of saying to yourself and others “I am a rational and scientific person. I know the facts about nuclear. I know the fears of its safety are overblown. I’m smart and intelligent while the common rubes are scientifically illiterate fools.”
The truth is that while groups like Greenpeace exist, nuclear has failed largely because it’s just too damn expensive. But fission fanboys never talk about the cost. They just wax endlessly about how safe nuclear is, or repost old canards about how coal releases more radiation than nuclear, or the per-watt death figures. Etc. Endless repetition of factually correct but utterly irrelevant information.
No, in my world tomorrow’s grid uses whatever delivers reliable electricity at the lowest total cost: solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, storage, and yes, nuclear if it can compete. This isn’t a religion with approved energy sources. It’s an engineering problem with a price tag, and nobody gets bonus points for glowing in the dark.
Exactly, this is an engineering problem. You’re talking it like it’s an accounting one. Reliability, emergency use, redundancy, generating potential and universal scalability are the most important factors. Cost is a completely separate issue governed by separate factors, many of which are 100% artificial.
Dude, the cost is the final decision point after all those concerns are handled…
You’re stringing worlds together at this point.
Cost is the single largest factor in the deployment of new power plants, and solar is just impossible to match right now.
You could spend literally decades and billions building a nuclear plant, or start deploying solar right this minute and immediately reap the rewards of that investment.
It’s a no-brainer.
I would say that even availability is an important factor, maybe more important then the mere price.
It ultimately gets translated into costs, that’s what greenlights a project.
But it doesn’t need to be one or the other. The more diverse the grid the better. I’ll also say again, cost on both sides is mostly artificial anyway.
Again, you’re stringing words together.
Cost is a very real measure.
You could say that the numbers scribbled down on pieces of paper next to a dollar sign are artificial or miscalculated, but the invested manpower and resources and time (and a large number of other consequences) are all very real, and translate into a cost.
Is your stance we should not have a diverse grid? Because that’s the only point I’ve really made this whole time. The more methods we have to produce electricity and the more redundancy the better. Currently active nuclear plants produce the cheapest power. Building new is more expensive, sure. That doesn’t mean we abandon the tech and soley focus on one solution. This has been my entire higher education and professional career.
where the fuck did anybody say that?
“Glowing in the dark” refers to nuclear power sources. Hope this helps.
yes i know that, genius. the point is that is not an argument people are using for nuclear. it’s a blatant straw man from someone clearly not engaging in a goood faith discussion.
That’s kind of the point; it’s not a straw man, it’s saying that the options should be considered on their merits not on irrelevancies. “There are no bonus points added to the scoring just because nuclear looks cool when it glows”
A lot of people support nuclear for largely cultural reasons.
What cultural reasons would anybody support it for?
Not among the general population, but among internet nerd culture, nuclear has a certain level of support purely for cultural reasons. There’s a culture of people on the internet who like nuclear primarily as a cultural shibboleth. If you can convince yourself that the only reason nuclear hasn’t taken off is due to unreasonable fear and technical illiteracy, then supporting nuclear is extremely self-affirming. Supporting nuclear is a way of saying to yourself and others “I am a rational and scientific person. I know the facts about nuclear. I know the fears of its safety are overblown. I’m smart and intelligent while the common rubes are scientifically illiterate fools.”
The truth is that while groups like Greenpeace exist, nuclear has failed largely because it’s just too damn expensive. But fission fanboys never talk about the cost. They just wax endlessly about how safe nuclear is, or repost old canards about how coal releases more radiation than nuclear, or the per-watt death figures. Etc. Endless repetition of factually correct but utterly irrelevant information.