Shilling? My brother in christ, it is quite literally the only way forward. Fossil fuels are killing us, and will continue to do so. Wind and solar just aren’t enough. Hydro and geo energies aren’t available everywhere.
There is no shilling, there is only desperate pleading for us to pull our heads out of our asses and do something.
Wind + solar + storage is both enough and beating nuclear at this point, and by the time the next nuclear power plant actually manages to get online, the calculation will be even further in favour of that mix, on account of the absolutely plummeting cost of storage, which is following the same trend as solar used to, with costs reductions >98%. Not to mention the built-in resilience you get from having a more widely distributed instead of having a few nodes producing the lion’s share of your power.
I don’t have any ideological opposition to nuclear. If you manage to build it without massive subsidies and taking care of your waste, feel free to build them. That’s happening in exactly 0 places worldwide though.
Nuclear is not economically feasible and still does have its fair share of problems. It also generates waste, even if at far less scale than fossil fuels. Wind and solar are cheap and very scalable in most countries, which makes them economically feasible (and can also accelerate a move from fossil). Don’t be so quick to discard them.
As a matter of fact, last month, in Spain, we generated more energy just from wind than from nuclear. (31.7% vs 21.4%) source
There’s no world where you could build more nuclear at the rate that would be required to fix things. It’s expensive as hell and there’s not enough skilled people to go around to build all of it globally.
Shilling? My brother in christ, it is quite literally the only way forward. Fossil fuels are killing us, and will continue to do so. Wind and solar just aren’t enough. Hydro and geo energies aren’t available everywhere.
There is no shilling, there is only desperate pleading for us to pull our heads out of our asses and do something.
Wind + solar + storage is both enough and beating nuclear at this point, and by the time the next nuclear power plant actually manages to get online, the calculation will be even further in favour of that mix, on account of the absolutely plummeting cost of storage, which is following the same trend as solar used to, with costs reductions >98%. Not to mention the built-in resilience you get from having a more widely distributed instead of having a few nodes producing the lion’s share of your power.
I don’t have any ideological opposition to nuclear. If you manage to build it without massive subsidies and taking care of your waste, feel free to build them. That’s happening in exactly 0 places worldwide though.
Lion’s don’t share. Except with other lions. Which makes all shares lion’s shares.
Nuclear is not economically feasible and still does have its fair share of problems. It also generates waste, even if at far less scale than fossil fuels. Wind and solar are cheap and very scalable in most countries, which makes them economically feasible (and can also accelerate a move from fossil). Don’t be so quick to discard them.
As a matter of fact, last month, in Spain, we generated more energy just from wind than from nuclear. (31.7% vs 21.4%) source
There’s no world where you could build more nuclear at the rate that would be required to fix things. It’s expensive as hell and there’s not enough skilled people to go around to build all of it globally.