China has plugged in its first domestically-built nuclear reactor with hopes to become more energy-independent and to export its design across the globe.
Lets be honest about the downsides of nuclear though. It costs a ton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source. I don't know how much to trust this wikipedia page but it's 4-5 times as expensive as wind or solar. The most expensive energy period it seems, and with up front costs. Nuclear waste is a really big deal as well. This might be a bit more paranoid but having a singular centralized power plant for a large area makes it vulnerable to sabotage or attack.
Historically nuclear plants have allowed for further research into nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but I've heard nuclear being described as a technological "dead end." It doesn't seem like we are going to make any break throughs anytime soon, and the dream of cold fusion never materialized either. Although perhaps that is the "big coal psyop" propaganda affecting me LOL
What I'm saying is don't romanticize nuclear too much. Solar and wind power have their limits in their current state, there's potential places in the energy grid for smaller nuclear plants to cover areas where other green sources don't work, and perhaps to act as storage as well. But nuclear kinda sucks though.
There's an environmental case for nuclear in that the power plants have a very small footprint compared to big solar or wind installations, so you don't have to displace native wildlife etc. Spent fuel isn't as big a problem as people think, and it can be reprocessed like they do in France but the proposed reprocessing facility got killed in the USA because of NIMBYism. Nuclear plants (at least pressurized-water reactors) are built like bunkers and can withstand a lot, and they take security very seriously. At least that's what this TED talk claims
If we already had Full Communism and money wasn't a thing I could see nuclear power being more viable. It also might be cheaper than renewables with battery storage, but I don't know the numbers on that. Smaller reactors that can be throttled up and down more easily might replace natural gas power plants to fill in during high demand. Or if we had Full Communism we could just stop working when the power goes out.
I listened to some of the people who wrote the IPCC report that the current GND is based on in person. They're saying that Nuclear is good, but can't be built in time to avert the climate disaster. Nuclear should have been in the works 20 years ago.
The primary appeal of fossil fuels is that you get to decide when you use them. Where as Solar/Wind tend to be incidental to the moment without substantive storage capacity.
But the "peak" periods of energy use tend to correspond with "peak" periods of renewable energy production. And the proliferation of renewables is still relatively small, such that we aren't even at the baseline energy demand for the average day. That makes renewables both attractive and immediately profitable to produce, so long as we're ok with relying on coal/nat. gas in a supplementary role.
Nuclear provides a benefit similar to FFs, in so far as you can vary the amount of fuel you input and electricity you generate. But then there are all the problems listed above.
If you love your free-market model for energy, nuclear doesn't work. It only works when you're willing to do the kind of subsidization and central planning that China does but the US despises.
Lets be honest about the downsides of nuclear though. It costs a ton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source. I don't know how much to trust this wikipedia page but it's 4-5 times as expensive as wind or solar. The most expensive energy period it seems, and with up front costs. Nuclear waste is a really big deal as well. This might be a bit more paranoid but having a singular centralized power plant for a large area makes it vulnerable to sabotage or attack.
Historically nuclear plants have allowed for further research into nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but I've heard nuclear being described as a technological "dead end." It doesn't seem like we are going to make any break throughs anytime soon, and the dream of cold fusion never materialized either. Although perhaps that is the "big coal psyop" propaganda affecting me LOL
What I'm saying is don't romanticize nuclear too much. Solar and wind power have their limits in their current state, there's potential places in the energy grid for smaller nuclear plants to cover areas where other green sources don't work, and perhaps to act as storage as well. But nuclear kinda sucks though.
There's an environmental case for nuclear in that the power plants have a very small footprint compared to big solar or wind installations, so you don't have to displace native wildlife etc. Spent fuel isn't as big a problem as people think, and it can be reprocessed like they do in France but the proposed reprocessing facility got killed in the USA because of NIMBYism. Nuclear plants (at least pressurized-water reactors) are built like bunkers and can withstand a lot, and they take security very seriously. At least that's what this TED talk claims
If we already had Full Communism and money wasn't a thing I could see nuclear power being more viable. It also might be cheaper than renewables with battery storage, but I don't know the numbers on that. Smaller reactors that can be throttled up and down more easily might replace natural gas power plants to fill in during high demand. Or if we had Full Communism we could just stop working when the power goes out.
I listened to some of the people who wrote the IPCC report that the current GND is based on in person. They're saying that Nuclear is good, but can't be built in time to avert the climate disaster. Nuclear should have been in the works 20 years ago.
But what that means is we need to start building nuclear now alongside the shorter term solutions needed to avert disaster.
Yes, in addition to carbon sucks. They had mentioned politicians potentially using those as weak gestures to stave off real change.
The primary appeal of fossil fuels is that you get to decide when you use them. Where as Solar/Wind tend to be incidental to the moment without substantive storage capacity.
But the "peak" periods of energy use tend to correspond with "peak" periods of renewable energy production. And the proliferation of renewables is still relatively small, such that we aren't even at the baseline energy demand for the average day. That makes renewables both attractive and immediately profitable to produce, so long as we're ok with relying on coal/nat. gas in a supplementary role.
Nuclear provides a benefit similar to FFs, in so far as you can vary the amount of fuel you input and electricity you generate. But then there are all the problems listed above.
If you love your free-market model for energy, nuclear doesn't work. It only works when you're willing to do the kind of subsidization and central planning that China does but the US despises.
And when you do a PR campaign to get rid of the stigma behind it.
You don't need a PR campaign for a utility.
People are very happy to have electricity and very upset when it goes out. After that, most people don't think about where it comes from
You do in a lot of ways. Anti-Nuclear is very popular in the environmental movement.
Anti-coal is popular, but it wasn't environmentalism that crippled the coal industry.
There's a reason almost all the pro nuclear boosterism is funded by right wing business interests, along with shitting on renewable energy.
deleted by creator