Ngl, I used to hate the idea of nuclear energy… until I read this.

8 comments

1. Putting safety aside, the reasons nuclear is a giant distraction are

   – it’s ridiculously expensive, literally 5 times more expensive than offshore wind (solar and onshore wind are even cheaper)

   – it takes 10-15 years to build, again 5 times longer than offshore wind (solar and onshore wind are even cheaper) – construction ALWAYS overruns

   – it is basically impossible to do without government underwriting and is a massive magnet for grift because the contracts are so massive

   – SMRs don’t exist IRL

   – some firms say they can demo SMRs by 2029 but I’m not holding my breath

   Which is why China is scaling back its nuclear roll-out. Consider that China deploys as much solar generation as 5 nuclear station every WEEK.

2. > Yet what happens when the sun isn’t shining or the wind is still? How do we maintain grid stability during those times?
   >
   > While renewables get the spotlight, nuclear quietly provides a steady energy supply.

   This doesn’t really make sense. How does a “steady supply” fill in occasional energy droughts by wind and solar? It isn’t a steady supply you are looking for to complement wind and solar, but a dispatchable one. It would further appear to me beneficial if there would be some complementary element that could pick up surplus energy and make it available during those droughts.

3. It tho stays a dream technology, SMRs are not now and not in the near future accessible to market, cause there are too many problems. Yet they are discussed as savior since the 1950s.
   Transmutation basically needs a lot of energy and only produces nuclear waste that is not as long radioactive than before. It is no business model and is known since the 60s as well. Active transmutation in the reactor increases the danger of a meltdown.

   So this problems aint solved for 60 years and just an influencer writing in his blog on the internet, does not change reality.

4. Isn’t nuclear kinda the opposite of what you want to bridge gaps that don’t happen all that often and for relatively short periods of time?

   Building super expensive power plants that do nothing for 95% of the time doesn’t seem wise.

5. [removed]

6. Lost me at willful ignorance: *”Yet what happens when the sun isn’t shining or the wind is still?”*

7. If your population is so big that solar and wind aren’t sufficient, your population is probably already too big.

8. Who insures a nuclear plant- private insurance company or the tax payers?

Comments are closed.