You both sound stupid. For the first person, we have two years to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and switch to renewables. Those goals are just empty promises, while China (a non- “first world” country) is ahead of schedule.
Bro. I’m not even one of those guys. Listen to the podcast. My problem is we don’t have the time when nuclear reactors take 20 years to build and solar is cheap and could/should be done tomorrow.
Nuclear plants have previously been slow to build: Averaging 6 - 9 years. Solar projects take 1-3 years to build. Risk factors are higher for nuclear than solar. It’s very expensive to clean up in the event of an accident and the impact is far greater. Nuclear needs access to water. Solar doesn’t.
If you are in a sunny geography, solar is way cheaper, faster, less dangerous. And the costs keep going down.
The big disadvantage is you need storage. It doesn’t work when the sun is down. In every other aspect it’s so cheap right now. In Australia, we are at the point of excess solar energy. The price of electricity can become negative during the sunny days.
The initial comment was by QueerCommie. I was butting in with my 2cents.
The cost per KWh to build nuclear reactors is 4-6 times more than solar projects. You have to weigh that along with the greater time to complete the project.
Obviously we need to keep doing stuff after then, but the point is to save humanity we need to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Why did you choose that part of my comment to answer?
You both sound stupid. For the first person, we have two years to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and switch to renewables. Those goals are just empty promises, while China (a non- “first world” country) is ahead of schedule.
We certainly need fewer cars, but that on its own is hardly a policy. Nuclear ain’t shit. It takes forever to build and works much worse than solar. https://srslywrong.com/podcast/308-the-case-for-100-wind-water-solar-to-combat-climate-change-w-mark-z-jacobson-2/
Please elaborate on what you mean by “works much worse than solar”
they mean that they bought the fossil fuel propaganda about nuclear.
Nice to see someone else who’s pro nuclear power
Most people here are.
Bro. I’m not even one of those guys. Listen to the podcast. My problem is we don’t have the time when nuclear reactors take 20 years to build and solar is cheap and could/should be done tomorrow.
I linked the podcast for a reason.
Nuclear plants have previously been slow to build: Averaging 6 - 9 years. Solar projects take 1-3 years to build. Risk factors are higher for nuclear than solar. It’s very expensive to clean up in the event of an accident and the impact is far greater. Nuclear needs access to water. Solar doesn’t.
If you are in a sunny geography, solar is way cheaper, faster, less dangerous. And the costs keep going down.
The big disadvantage is you need storage. It doesn’t work when the sun is down. In every other aspect it’s so cheap right now. In Australia, we are at the point of excess solar energy. The price of electricity can become negative during the sunny days.
Ty for the explanation. I initially thought you meant that A nuclear power plant produces less power than solar panels
The initial comment was by QueerCommie. I was butting in with my 2cents.
The cost per KWh to build nuclear reactors is 4-6 times more than solar projects. You have to weigh that along with the greater time to complete the project.
Two years isn’t enough. We need to completely overhaul our architecture in preparation for increased heat.
Obviously we need to keep doing stuff after then, but the point is to save humanity we need to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Why did you choose that part of my comment to answer?